On Sat, 16 Nov 2024 03:31:13 +0000, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, Ant
wrote:

>Since HL2 will be/is 20 yrs. old and we're all getting nostalgia! Let's
>talk about those days!
>
>IIRC during the first week of its release, I bought its retail from a
>local Best Buy with a $10/10% sale or something back then. According to
>my detailed https://zimage.com/~ant/antfarm/about/toys.html history, I
>recently upgraded my Windows gaming PC with these parts: "... an AMD
>Athlon 64 3200+ 2.2GHz 512KB Socket 754 single core CPU, ASUS K8V SE
>Deluxe (VIA K8T800 Socket 754 ATX; VIA VT8237 South Bridge; Revision 2;
>onboard sound disabled; onboard NIC not used/connected (using 3COM NIC
>for network) and can't be disabled or else Promise Raid won't be
>activate), a 3 fan HDD Peeze cooler, 1 GB of PC3200 Kingston RAM (CAS
>3), and Creative Sound Blaster Audigy 2 ZS." :) I think I also got
>Windows XP OS too.
>
>Anyways, I remember playing this game over my Thanksgiving weekend. It
>was amazing! Very smooth, pretty, and fun! I don't remember how long it
>took me to finish it. It was a great sequel. Of course years later,
>episodes 1 and 2 (The Orange Box -- will talk about that in three
>years). I don't have and want a VR to play Alyx. :(
>
>What about the rest of you?

My first HL2 memory was Dan Adams' _second_ paragraph in his pc.ign.com
review:

>Before I really get into the review, you should know the background of
>how this game was reviewed. Valve did not want to send out copies of
>their game (for fairly obvious reasons) before it was released to the
>public. In order to play the game, I, and several of my colleagues
>throughout the industry, took a trip up to Seattle to visit Valve in
>order to have some private time with the title. I was given a little
>room to myself where I could close the door, turn off the lights, click
>my little red slippers, and pretend that I was sitting at home. It worked
>for the most part, largely because I was so engrossed with the game that
>when I came out of my trance I often had to take a moment to get my
>bearings. Obviously, Valve was happy to bring me into a controlled
>environment for ideal playing conditions.

This is of course after the first paragraph, which gushed "[HL2 is] the
best single-player shooter ever released for the PC..." Yet strangely
claimed later in the same paragraph that "...[HL2] doesn't do anything
particularly new; it doesn't really innovate..."

Despite its touted physics and all the advertised eye candy. Hmm.

I thought, "That sounds like a conflict of interest." Reviewers,
apparently *all* of them, were being handled by Valve on their campus.
Ever been corporate handled? I have. Your objective opinions go out the
window, if you can even tell what is good information and what is spin.

So I took "it doesn't really innovate" as the actual review.

I didn't download Steam for 7 years after HL2. I didn't buy Half Life 2
until 9 years ago for Black Mesa. I loved the _original_ Half-Life.

So my first memory of HL2 was, "Well, that's the absolute end of any
chance of independent reviews."

When Jeff Gerstmann was fired, some 3 years later*, for failing to give a
good review to a corporate partnership game, my opinion was sealed.

https://bit.ly/4fWpZmn

(The bookmark link on Wikipedia had problems with pasting. So bit.ly)

I thank Dan Adams for giving me the heads up.

--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten
_____________________________________________________________________

* Jonah Falcon and I had quite the conversation about this. I even wrote
an article. Here's a paragraph:

>What we end up with is a thorough perception that the whole review
>industry has been compromised by carrot-and-stick public relations
>manipulation. There is a widespread belief, often unstated at the
>publications themselves, that the materials for previews will suddenly
>"dry up" if they give too harsh a review on a shipping product. You don't
>bite the hand that feeds you, you can't. In an attempt to capture the
>lowest common denominator to bring a large audience, these publications
>have all but divorced themselves from what matters to the more discerning
>audience. They are providing an entertainment product first, and critical
>review second, a sort of *Nintendo Power* approach, but in the guise of
>"independent" journalism. The perception is that there is no spoken policy
>regarding these issues, just a tightening of the purse strings by overlarge
>publishers when the playing field is not slightly tilted in their favor.

On 22/11/2024 21:34, Zaghadka wrote:
> When Jeff Gerstmann was fired, some 3 years later*, for failing to give a
> good review to a corporate partnership game, my opinion was sealed.
>
> https://bit.ly/4fWpZmn
>
> (The bookmark link on Wikipedia had problems with pasting. So bit.ly)
>
> I thank Dan Adams for giving me the heads up.

I'm pretty sure it does happen so to me the question is how prevalent it
is and how explicit. So two examples from UK newspapers. Sources at The
Times (Murdoch owned) have said although they wouldn't be told directly
which stories where acceptable there was an understanding of no making
the owner look bad. The court case involving another Murdoch title, The
News of The World, was conspicuous underplayed in The Times even though
it was headline news.

The Daily Mail is quite different in that there the editorial staff are
told what they should be running with to create the whole narrative of
baton down the hatches as society is collapsing so the only solution is
to give more money to rich people.

I assume that this type of 'direction' also happens in games magazines
and has only got worse since the balance between money from actual sales
and the adverts in 'magazines' has shifted almost completely to the
latter. It's one of the reasons I rely more and more on Steam reviews
and not a professional review pointing out how mundane the game is, all
the bugs, technical issues etc. but still giving it 8.5/10.

Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> looked up from reading the entrails of
the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:

>On Sat, 16 Nov 2024 03:31:13 +0000, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, Ant
>wrote:
<snip>
>My first HL2 memory was Dan Adams' _second_ paragraph in his pc.ign.com
>review:
>
>>Before I really get into the review, you should know the background of
>>how this game was reviewed. Valve did not want to send out copies of
>>their game (for fairly obvious reasons) before it was released to the
>>public. In order to play the game, I, and several of my colleagues
>>throughout the industry, took a trip up to Seattle to visit Valve in
>>order to have some private time with the title. I was given a little
>>room to myself where I could close the door, turn off the lights, click
>>my little red slippers, and pretend that I was sitting at home. It worked
>>for the most part, largely because I was so engrossed with the game that
>>when I came out of my trance I often had to take a moment to get my
>>bearings. Obviously, Valve was happy to bring me into a controlled
>>environment for ideal playing conditions.
>
>This is of course after the first paragraph, which gushed "[HL2 is] the
>best single-player shooter ever released for the PC..." Yet strangely
>claimed later in the same paragraph that "...[HL2] doesn't do anything
>particularly new; it doesn't really innovate..."
>
>Despite its touted physics and all the advertised eye candy. Hmm.

>I thought, "That sounds like a conflict of interest."

Not really a conflict at all.
You can not innovate, but do what's been done before, only better than
it's ever been done before.

IE you took an existing thing and utterly perfected it, without actually
adding anything new.

I never thought HL2 was all that, far too on rails for my tastes.

The original HL was also on rails, but somehow it never managed to
*feel* like it was on rails, HL2 failed at that.

Xocyll

On Sat, 23 Nov 2024 11:42:07 +0000, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:

>On 22/11/2024 21:34, Zaghadka wrote:
>> When Jeff Gerstmann was fired, some 3 years later*, for failing to give a
>> good review to a corporate partnership game, my opinion was sealed.

<very interesting but long post snipped>

Although with the proliferation of user reviews, this has become less
of a problem. I honestly can't remember the last time I looked to a
'professional' review site to help me decide whether or not a game was
good enough to purchase. I _do_ look at user reviews for that purpose,
though. If I go to a website like PC Gamer or Kotaku to learn about a
game, it's literally that: what is the game about? But there's an
underlying assumption --founded by years of professional reviewers
sabotaging their own stories, as mentioned above-- that they're just
repeating marketing hype.

Not that user reviews are without their own problems, of course.
They're, individually, just as easily manipulated, and even the ones
that are written in earnest, a lot of them lack objectivity or any
sort of real analysis. But the sheer number of them means that _some_
of them are going to be honest and trustworthy. Which is more than you
can say about professional reviews.

But part of the problem also lies with the audience, who /demand/ day
one reviews. The only way this is possible is if the reviewers are in
direct contact with the publishers, which leads to a worry about
LOSING that contact if the reviewers say the wrong thing. And even if
the reviewers are trying to be objective and avoiding this sort of
conflict of interest, the very fact that they have to rush to get
their review out to meet the publisher's release date (often running
pre-release code to boot!) is problematic. Gamers' obsession with
getting the game right away is part of the problem.

Although maybe this too will become less of an issue, as video game
libraries balloon and being able to get games for free if you just
wait a few years becomes more common. Who needs to rush out and get a
new game when you have a hundred others already waiting for you to
play them? ;-)

On Sat, 23 Nov 2024 11:36:25 -0500, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

>But part of the problem also lies with the audience, who /demand/ day
>one reviews. The only way this is possible is if the reviewers are in
>direct contact with the publishers, which leads to a worry about
>LOSING that contact if the reviewers say the wrong thing. And even if
>the reviewers are trying to be objective and avoiding this sort of
>conflict of interest, the very fact that they have to rush to get
>their review out to meet the publisher's release date (often running
>pre-release code to boot!) is problematic. Gamers' obsession with
>getting the game right away is part of the problem.

Exactly. In the afforementioned article I wrote about Gerstmann, this was
my primary point. The main problem was the audience, not the
publications. To wit:

>What is at issue is credibility and the collected ire of the
>readership. The perceived integrity of the gaming publications
>business is clearly not in good shape. This is independent of its actual
>integrity, which is fine, given the audiences the publications are
>serving. It seems that a large portion its audience is ready and
>willing to believe that publications and editors have given up
>integrity in the name of more profitable relationships with their
>sponsors. When the public faith in game reviewers is at that sort of
>low, it doesn't matter if there is journalistic integrity or not.
>Readers will believe anything they want about the subject, _a priori_.

As you say, the audience demanded too much. Then they turned on the
publications when they couldn't keep up. Then they turned to Ben
"Yahtzee" Croshaw, who was constantly taking the piss but was thought to
give "honest" reviews.

I didn't get what I deserved, but the royal "we" sure did. Actual
corruption took root eventually.

--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

On Sat, 23 Nov 2024 07:02:41 -0500, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Xocyll wrote:

>Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> said:
>
>>On Sat, 16 Nov 2024 03:31:13 +0000, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, Ant
>>wrote:
><snip>
>>My first HL2 memory was Dan Adams' _second_ paragraph in his pc.ign.com
>>review:
>>
>>>Before I really get into the review, you should know the background of
>>>how this game was reviewed. Valve did not want to send out copies of
>>>their game (for fairly obvious reasons) before it was released to the
>>>public. In order to play the game, I, and several of my colleagues
>>>throughout the industry, took a trip up to Seattle to visit Valve in
>>>order to have some private time with the title. I was given a little
>>>room to myself where I could close the door, turn off the lights, click
>>>my little red slippers, and pretend that I was sitting at home. It worked
>>>for the most part, largely because I was so engrossed with the game that
>>>when I came out of my trance I often had to take a moment to get my
>>>bearings. Obviously, Valve was happy to bring me into a controlled
>>>environment for ideal playing conditions.
>>
>>This is of course after the first paragraph, which gushed "[HL2 is] the
>>best single-player shooter ever released for the PC..." Yet strangely
>>claimed later in the same paragraph that "...[HL2] doesn't do anything
>>particularly new; it doesn't really innovate..."
>>
>>Despite its touted physics and all the advertised eye candy. Hmm.
>
>>I thought, "That sounds like a conflict of interest."
>
>Not really a conflict at all.

Sitting in a campus playing on bleeding-edge hardware, in a controlled,
sound-proofed space, with corporate handlers guiding you (and probably
gifting you a case of Code Red) is not a conflict? As an independent
journalist that is the definition of a conflict of interest. For
instance, Dan was playing at 1280x720... in _2004_.

There's a reason why _Consumer Reports_ runs on subscriptions and not
ads. Additionally, they are very hard line about *consistent* testing
standards for all products in a review class in a particular year.

They demonstrate the way to run an independent evaluation. For a games
publication? Do it on your own equipment, which should be stock equipment
representative of what most people have, in your own building, and
absolutely no ad money from anyone you review. Maybe no one related to
gaming at all. If you're advertising graphics hardware, you're probably
pushing bleeding-edge tech in your reviews to enhance the upgrade cycle.

I think the most important and informative service Steam has is the
annual technology polling, where you get to find out who has what. Very,
very few are on the bleeding edge. Mostly professional gamers,
competitive gamers, and people with more disposable income than sense.

Hardware is king when it comes to a proper PC Master Race experience, but
it doesn't have to be pimp.

>You can not innovate, but do what's been done before, only better than
>it's ever been done before.
>
>IE you took an existing thing and utterly perfected it, without actually
>adding anything new.
>
>I never thought HL2 was all that, far too on rails for my tastes.
>
Exactly. "Doesn't innovate" means exactly that, and probably more.
Therefore, not only a conflict of interest in the testing process but an
oxymoronic contradiction in terms as a result.

I mean it's opinion, so almost anything goes, but there's a limit.

>The original HL was also on rails, but somehow it never managed to
>*feel* like it was on rails, HL2 failed at that.
>
Yup. When I finally got around to playing HL2 I felt it was downright
claustrophobic. Level complexity was sacrificed for graphics complexity.
At times HL2 felt like a series of quicktime events. Or cheap set pieces:
Here's an unlimited box of grenades; here's a bridge; throw them now or
die.

But a lot of Half-Life fans wanted a cinematic experience in the sequel.
They got it. They got breathtaking, for the period, graphics and a
complete narrative experience. (Though IMO mediocre. Game writers at the
time were not great. See: Knights of the Old Republic.)

So, imo, Valve ran with Half-Life as if the only thing that made it
special was its cinematic feeling. The tram ride. The storytelling as
part of gameplay. The chapters. It did make the original special, but the
gameplay was just as important.

The set pieces in HL1 (e.g.: the helicopter) were interactive, difficult,
featured innovative gameplay at the time, and were less stagey. You had
recently received the weapons to deal with them, but they weren't sitting
at the door in a box because the levels were larger. You had to _decide_
how to use them. Perhaps the illusion of agency, but agency nonetheless.

Personally, I thought they doubled down on the wrong thing and could have
sacrificed some graphics, to the same effect, to enhance play.

--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

On Sat, 23 Nov 2024 13:59:15 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Sat, 23 Nov 2024 07:02:41 -0500, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
>Xocyll wrote:
>
>>Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> said:
>>
>>>On Sat, 16 Nov 2024 03:31:13 +0000, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, Ant
>>>wrote:
>><snip>
>>>My first HL2 memory was Dan Adams' _second_ paragraph in his pc.ign.com
>>>review:
>>>
>>>>Before I really get into the review, you should know the background of
>>>>how this game was reviewed. Valve did not want to send out copies of
>>>>their game (for fairly obvious reasons) before it was released to the
>>>>public. In order to play the game, I, and several of my colleagues
>>>>throughout the industry, took a trip up to Seattle to visit Valve in
>>>>order to have some private time with the title. I was given a little
>>>>room to myself where I could close the door, turn off the lights, click
>>>>my little red slippers, and pretend that I was sitting at home. It worked
>>>>for the most part, largely because I was so engrossed with the game that
>>>>when I came out of my trance I often had to take a moment to get my
>>>>bearings. Obviously, Valve was happy to bring me into a controlled
>>>>environment for ideal playing conditions.
>>>
>>>This is of course after the first paragraph, which gushed "[HL2 is] the
>>>best single-player shooter ever released for the PC..." Yet strangely
>>>claimed later in the same paragraph that "...[HL2] doesn't do anything
>>>particularly new; it doesn't really innovate..."
>>>
>>>Despite its touted physics and all the advertised eye candy. Hmm.
>>
>>>I thought, "That sounds like a conflict of interest."
>>
>>Not really a conflict at all.
>
>Sitting in a campus playing on bleeding-edge hardware, in a controlled,
>sound-proofed space, with corporate handlers guiding you (and probably
>gifting you a case of Code Red) is not a conflict? As an independent
>journalist that is the definition of a conflict of interest. For
>instance, Dan was playing at 1280x720... in _2004_.

On the other hand... it's a very hard road to walk for journalists.
Having some familiarity there, I know that most of them very much
wanted to offer an objective take on the subject. The idea of the
reviewer (or even the editor) 'on the take' is an unfair assessment.
They don't directly benefit from giving games good reviews and
(usually) they've no instructions from on high to do so either.

But...

As you say, playing a game an environment controlled by the publisher
-usually after being feted by them before hand- will influence anyone
towards being more positive towards their creation. As will worries
that being particularly negative might spark ill will between you and
the publisher, costing you opportunities to get early reviews or
inside information.

I mean, just going to MEET the developers and see them as people
instead of names is going to make you look more favorably on their
product. They've put their hearts and souls into their creations; they
believe in it and want it so desperately to succeed. (not to mention,
many of them NEED it to succeed to keep their families fed!). Do you
really want to be the person responsible for tanking their dreams?

And all that's before the advertising guys start moaning about how big
a customer EA is for the magazine. Good editors will usually shield
their reporters and tell them to write based on the game, not on what
might or might not piss off advertising partners, but just KNOWING
that ultimately your paycheck is dependent on keeping certain
publishers happy can't help but influence your viewpoint.

As hard as you try, it's incredibly difficult to remain objective in
these situations.

The alternative is, as mentioned, to be very strict in how you do your
reviews. But this option is incredibly costly. You have to PAY for the
product instead of getting reviewer copies. You have to WAIT for it to
hit store shelves instead of getting early access (delaying your
reviews). You can't depend on advertising to recoup some of your
costs, so you're forced to increase your subscription rates... which
also has an unfortunate side effect of greatly reducing your
readership. You'll also need to hire a better (read: higher-paid)
breed of reporter too; one more aware of how to avoid such
temptations.

And all that for a flash-in-the-pan mass-media product like
video-games where the review will ultimately STILL be based on the
subjective opinon of the reviewer? It's honestly not worth the effort.
Certainly readers don't really seem to care.

Certainly video game review magazines and websites could do better.
They could take steps to lessen the influence publishers have on them.
Certainly, too, there have been unfortunate instances where there has
been open collusion between reviewer and publisher. But on the whole
the idea that video game journalists (in general) are in bed with
publishers is unfair. A lot of them try to do their job well. But it's
really hard sometimes.

<snip Half Life 2 stuff>

>Personally, I thought they doubled down on the wrong thing and could have
>sacrificed some graphics, to the same effect, to enhance play.

One of the more immediately obvious problems I had with "Half Life 2"
--and a very noticable downgrade from the original-- was in how it
loaded levels. The first game was amazing in that it pretty seamlessly
loaded levels without much of a pause between them. In an era when
most FPS games made you wait -sometimes up to several minutes!-
between level transitions as new data was loaded, "Half Life 1" did it
in seconds... sometimes so fast you barely even noticed.

It greatly aided in creating an immersive world, one that was whole
and compete from start to end. You weren't constantly pulled out of
the experience; there weren't sudden breaks in the geometry to tell
you that you're in a new map. No, there was a brief flash* as new data
streamed in and you just kept playing.

Half Life 2 came close but there level loads were still much more
noticable. You weren't, fortunately, thrown to a loading screen but
there was still a very noticable pause whenever you crossed the level
transition threshold. Even on modern hardware, it's still noticable!
It yanked me out of the game whenever it occured; the first few times
it happened I wondered if there was something broken with my PC or if
the game was buggy, because SURELY it couldn't be what Valve intended.
Not after they'd worked so hard to make those transitions
near-invisible in the first "Half Life".

"Half Life 2" wasn't a bad game. But it was a markedly less amazing
product than its predecessor and overall didn't wow me much more than
its competitors. It did some stuff really well; other stuff not so
much. It wasn't amazing. It was high-average; capable but not
awe-inspiring. It baffles me that it gets held in such high regard to
this day.

* if your hardware was fast enough. Up to a few seconds if you were
running on an underpowered PC. Still heads and shoulders better than
almost anything else on the market

On Sat, 23 Nov 2024 17:50:06 -0500, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

>Certainly readers don't really seem to care.

Pretty much my point in a nutshell. That's the TL;DR.

If the readership doesn't care, the publication _can't_ care. If the
readership starts questioning the integrity of the product? Eventually
the publisher must chuck integrity in the bin and make a buck however it
can. There's no point in spending money on it if no one believes it.

IMO, we were all better off with the *Nintendo Power* approach. Today, I
get much better information out of my Switch's patron news service than I
ever did out of pc.ign.com.

That's because there's no doubt as to what it does and doesn't do.

--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> looked up from reading the entrails of
the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:

>On Sat, 23 Nov 2024 07:02:41 -0500, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
>Xocyll wrote:
>
>>Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> said:
>>
>>>On Sat, 16 Nov 2024 03:31:13 +0000, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, Ant
>>>wrote:
>><snip>
>>>My first HL2 memory was Dan Adams' _second_ paragraph in his pc.ign.com
>>>review:
>>>
>>>>Before I really get into the review, you should know the background of
>>>>how this game was reviewed. Valve did not want to send out copies of
>>>>their game (for fairly obvious reasons) before it was released to the
>>>>public. In order to play the game, I, and several of my colleagues
>>>>throughout the industry, took a trip up to Seattle to visit Valve in
>>>>order to have some private time with the title. I was given a little
>>>>room to myself where I could close the door, turn off the lights, click
>>>>my little red slippers, and pretend that I was sitting at home. It worked
>>>>for the most part, largely because I was so engrossed with the game that
>>>>when I came out of my trance I often had to take a moment to get my
>>>>bearings. Obviously, Valve was happy to bring me into a controlled
>>>>environment for ideal playing conditions.
>>>
>>>This is of course after the first paragraph, which gushed "[HL2 is] the
>>>best single-player shooter ever released for the PC..." Yet strangely
>>>claimed later in the same paragraph that "...[HL2] doesn't do anything
>>>particularly new; it doesn't really innovate..."
>>>
>>>Despite its touted physics and all the advertised eye candy. Hmm.
>>
>>>I thought, "That sounds like a conflict of interest."
>>
>>Not really a conflict at all.
>
>Sitting in a campus playing on bleeding-edge hardware, in a controlled,
>sound-proofed space, with corporate handlers guiding you (and probably
>gifting you a case of Code Red) is not a conflict? As an independent
>journalist that is the definition of a conflict of interest. For
>instance, Dan was playing at 1280x720... in _2004_.

You missed my point; I was not talking about a conflict of interest
between game publisher and reviewer, but of the 2 statements.
1. that it did not innovate and
2. "This is of course after the first paragraph, which gushed "[HL2 is]
the best single-player shooter ever released for the PC"

And there is no conflict between the two.
You can be the best single-player shooter and not innovate at the same
time - you just refine the single-player shooter experience without
adding anything new.

A new game does not have to break new ground, if it can go over well
trodden ground in the best way possible.

<snip>

Not unlike a TV show or a Detective novel or so many other things, you
can redo what's been done before, better than it's ever been done
before.

Go to a new steakhouse and get a pepper steak that's the best you've
ever had, even though you've been eating them for 40 years.

Xocyll

On 23/11/2024 16:36, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> Not that user reviews are without their own problems, of course.
> They're, individually, just as easily manipulated, and even the ones
> that are written in earnest, a lot of them lack objectivity or any
> sort of real analysis. But the sheer number of them means that_some_
> of them are going to be honest and trustworthy. Which is more than you
> can say about professional reviews.

That's kinda what I like about them. Yes there lot's of dross ones that
don't really say anything but you still get ones that do expand on what
they found was good/bad beyond awesome/complete pants. My least
favourite review, ones that review it against this is what someone
wanted the game to be and not this is the game that the devs. were
trying to make. So no, you shouldn't give Shadow Gambit:The Curse Crew a
bad review as it's not Commandos. I'm not even going to mention the I've
never played the game but I saw a talking head on YouTube saying it's
woke (whatever that actually means) crowd.

Possibly a failing of them is that if people on Steam are generally
anything like me there's a bias towards reviews that either are this is
just really bad or this is just really good. Who's going to spend time
writing a page of text for well it's ok I suppose.

On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 10:09:49 +0000, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, JAB
wrote:

>I've
>never played the game but I saw a talking head on YouTube saying it's
>woke (whatever that actually means) crowd.

"Woke" means, "You're tickling my well orchestrated cognitive dissonance
coping mechanisms. Stop that!"

--
Zag

This is csipg.rpg - reality is off topic. ...G. Quinn ('08)

On Sun, 24 Nov 2024 17:22:39 -0500, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Xocyll wrote:

>Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 23 Nov 2024 07:02:41 -0500, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
>>Xocyll wrote:
>>
>>>Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> said:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 16 Nov 2024 03:31:13 +0000, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, Ant
>>>>wrote:
>>><snip>
>>>>My first HL2 memory was Dan Adams' _second_ paragraph in his pc.ign.com
>>>>review:
>>>>
>>>>>Before I really get into the review, you should know the background of
>>>>>how this game was reviewed. Valve did not want to send out copies of
>>>>>their game (for fairly obvious reasons) before it was released to the
>>>>>public. In order to play the game, I, and several of my colleagues
>>>>>throughout the industry, took a trip up to Seattle to visit Valve in
>>>>>order to have some private time with the title. I was given a little
>>>>>room to myself where I could close the door, turn off the lights, click
>>>>>my little red slippers, and pretend that I was sitting at home. It worked
>>>>>for the most part, largely because I was so engrossed with the game that
>>>>>when I came out of my trance I often had to take a moment to get my
>>>>>bearings. Obviously, Valve was happy to bring me into a controlled
>>>>>environment for ideal playing conditions.
>>>>
>>>>This is of course after the first paragraph, which gushed "[HL2 is] the
>>>>best single-player shooter ever released for the PC..." Yet strangely
>>>>claimed later in the same paragraph that "...[HL2] doesn't do anything
>>>>particularly new; it doesn't really innovate..."
>>>>
>>>>Despite its touted physics and all the advertised eye candy. Hmm.
>>>
>>>>I thought, "That sounds like a conflict of interest."
>>>
>>>Not really a conflict at all.
>>
>>Sitting in a campus playing on bleeding-edge hardware, in a controlled,
>>sound-proofed space, with corporate handlers guiding you (and probably
>>gifting you a case of Code Red) is not a conflict? As an independent
>>journalist that is the definition of a conflict of interest. For
>>instance, Dan was playing at 1280x720... in _2004_.
>
>You missed my point; I was not talking about a conflict of interest
>between game publisher and reviewer, but of the 2 statements.
>1. that it did not innovate and
>2. "This is of course after the first paragraph, which gushed "[HL2 is]
>the best single-player shooter ever released for the PC"
>
>And there is no conflict between the two.

No, I got that. You just said it in reponse to "That sounds like a
conflict of interest." So context. You seemed to be missing *my* point.
To wit, I left that statement dangling in the wrong place anyway.
Probably should of said, "That feels like it *might* be the result of a
conflict of interest."

>You can be the best single-player shooter and not innovate at the same
>time - you just refine the single-player shooter experience without
>adding anything new.

Not in my book, but most opinions are valid. They can be informed,
uniformed, well thought through, reactionary, or even unworthy of
respect, etc. Very few are unworthy, though. Yours sure isn't.

>A new game does not have to break new ground, if it can go over well
>trodden ground in the best way possible.

Agree to disagree. To be "the best ever," IMO, you have to do something
innovative that other shooters haven't done. Level design. Cooler
weapons. Pacing. The first fully 3d modeled environments. Incredible
story. New way of telling a story. Something extraordinary. Incremental
improvements to graphics, improved smoothness of gameplay, better FPS,
better load times, or UI quality-of-life improvements may make for an
excellent shooter, and an objectively better shooter for the genre on
some points, but not "the best ever."

Otherwise, every new graphics technique would make a new shooter "the
best." I don't think like that. Simple progress is not exceptional to me.

In its day, the original HL was the best shooter ever. Storytelling
without cut scenes. Seemless level loads. I think it still was after HL2
dropped.

Before that, Unreal held that title, in my book, for its seemless
indoor/outdoor environments, cool weapons, pacing, and progression.

Unreal Tournament was the best arena shooter ever a few years later.
Superior maps and infinitely superior AI opponents. Amazing AI. But every
iteration of UT after that was just same-old same-old with better
graphics and a few bells and whistles, which may be objectively better in
a limited sense, but doesn't raise the bar to "best ever" imo.

We have competing definitions. Neither is invalid.

><snip>
>
>Not unlike a TV show or a Detective novel or so many other things, you
>can redo what's been done before, better than it's ever been done
>before.
>
>Go to a new steakhouse and get a pepper steak that's the best you've
>ever had, even though you've been eating them for 40 years.
>
Last try: If a pepper steak is "the best I ever had," the chef did
something innovative. Spicing. Cooking method. Something. Besides, your
analogy is significantly out of scope. The analogy to Dan Adams'
statement would be that it was "the best steak ever." If it isn't
something novel, that probably isn't true, right? Well trodden paths at
that general a statement level don't make the "cut," imo.

Otherwise, we're just going to disagree here. I understand your point.
It's not worth aruging mine any further. Same data, different
conclusions.

No wrong conclusions. Just different. If you reply, I won't follow up.
I'm not trying to be rude, you just get the last word.

--
Zag

This is csipg.rpg - reality is off topic. ...G. Quinn ('08)

candycanearter07 wrote:
> Jhulian Waldby <wichitajayhawks@msn.com> wrote at 07:06 this Friday (GMT):
>> candycanearter07 wrote:
>>> Jhulian Waldby <wichitajayhawks@msn.com> wrote at 00:35 this Thursday (GMT):
>>>> candycanearter07 wrote:
>>>>> Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 18:38 this Wednesday (GMT):
>>>>>> On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 17:50:05 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07
>>>>>> <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
>>>>>>> Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> wrote at 03:31 this Saturday (GMT):
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Since HL2 will be/is 20 yrs. old and we're all getting nostalgia! Let's
>>>>>>>> talk about those days!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I got it in the modern day, and I remember enjoying it but not fully
>>>>>>> seeing why people adore it so much?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the comments here are anything to go on, most people --even the
>>>>>> ones who bought it back in 2004-- feel the same way.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The original "Half Life" really was revolutionary; its success
>>>>>> transformed the FPS genre. "Half Life 2"? It was an okay game but
>>>>>> hardly a match for its predecessor.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe it's better if HL2 is the beginning of the series for you.
>>>> Stepping into HL2 with no prior experience it's who am I some kind of
>>>> celebrity or national hero; everybody knows my name.
>>>>
>>>> It was enough to draw me in. I played until I was stuck and then went
>>>> back a few times (got a little further).
>>>
>>> Same. Nova Prospekt really confused me.
>>>
>>>> obgameExperience: Really like that pipe. I played Rainbow 6: Raven
>>>> Shield for 400 hours and never once scored a knife kill.
>>>
>>> What?
>>>
>>
>> The HL2 melee weapon, a piece of pipe, has a good range that it reaches.
>> The Raven Shield knife covers an inappreciable distance. Same with
>> the Call of Duty knife. HL2 is more "Skyrim-like".
>
>
> Oh, I never noticed that. More invisible game design stuff.
>
What it is is that the perspective in Call of Duty and Rainbow Six isn't
friendly to me and I can't judge the distance properly. It's fine for
shooting, but not for reaching out and touching someone with the
included melee weapon.

On 25/11/2024 19:22, Zaghadka wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 10:09:49 +0000, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, JAB
> wrote:
>
>> I've
>> never played the game but I saw a talking head on YouTube saying it's
>> woke (whatever that actually means) crowd.
>
> "Woke" means, "You're tickling my well orchestrated cognitive dissonance
> coping mechanisms. Stop that!"
>

I just find it weird that people can be so rabidly anti something when
they can't really explain what it is beyond things I don't like. See
also labelling something socialist, or even Marxist, when they don't
even know what they are.

We even had our last government try and get in on the act when judges
were ruling that a country doesn't just become classed as safe because
the government say it is no more than they can pass a law that says the
moon is made of cheese. That's not how laws work but that only cost
£750mil so not a problem really.

On 25/11/2024 19:56, Zaghadka wrote:
> Last try: If a pepper steak is "the best I ever had," the chef did
> something innovative. Spicing. Cooking method. Something. Besides, your
> analogy is significantly out of scope. The analogy to Dan Adams'
> statement would be that it was "the best steak ever." If it isn't
> something novel, that probably isn't true, right? Well trodden paths at
> that general a statement level don't make the "cut," imo.

There's obviously semantics in play but I tend to agree that the best
ever means something more than what you can technically take out of a
term. So I'm happy to describe HL:2 as one of the best FPSes I've played
(I still enjoy it to this date) but it doesn't make it onto my list of
best ever PC games whereas HL:1 does. That not only redefined what I
thought of as an FPS but also had a lasting impact on games that followed.

On 11/26/2024 12:27 AM, JAB wrote:
> On 25/11/2024 19:22, Zaghadka wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 10:09:49 +0000, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, JAB
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I've
>>> never played the game but I saw a talking head on YouTube saying it's
>>> woke (whatever that actually means) crowd.
>>
>> "Woke" means, "You're tickling my well orchestrated cognitive dissonance
>> coping mechanisms. Stop that!"
>>
>
> I just find it weird that people can be so rabidly anti something when
> they can't really explain what it is beyond things I don't like. See
> also labelling something socialist, or even Marxist, when they don't
> even know what they are.
>
> We even had our last government try and get in on the act when judges
> were ruling that a country doesn't just become classed as safe because
> the government say it is no more than they can pass a law that says the
> moon is made of cheese. That's not how laws work but that only cost
> £750mil so not a problem really.
>
"My <insert deity of choice> says 'That's Wrong!'"

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 26/11/2024 15:25, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> On 11/26/2024 12:27 AM, JAB wrote:
>> On 25/11/2024 19:22, Zaghadka wrote:
>>> On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 10:09:49 +0000, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, JAB
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've
>>>> never played the game but I saw a talking head on YouTube saying it's
>>>> woke (whatever that actually means) crowd.
>>>
>>> "Woke" means, "You're tickling my well orchestrated cognitive dissonance
>>> coping mechanisms. Stop that!"
>>>
>>
>> I just find it weird that people can be so rabidly anti something when
>> they can't really explain what it is beyond things I don't like. See
>> also labelling something socialist, or even Marxist, when they don't
>> even know what they are.
>>
>> We even had our last government try and get in on the act when judges
>> were ruling that a country doesn't just become classed as safe because
>> the government say it is no more than they can pass a law that says
>> the moon is made of cheese. That's not how laws work but that only
>> cost £750mil so not a problem really.
>>
> "My <insert deity of choice> says 'That's Wrong!'"
>

From the woke detector Steam Group. Honestly I'm just not sure whether
it's an elaborate prank or not.

“Woke” content = any images, messages, characters, storytelling,
dialogue, music, or game mechanics that include themes associated with
the left-side of the political aisle in contemporary western politics.

These themes include things like:
pro-LGBTQ+ messaging
pro-DEI messaging
pro-climate action messaging
pro-communism/socialism messaging
pro-abortion messaging
pro-pedophilia messaging
pro-immigration messaging
pro-transhumanism messaging
anti-western society messaging
anti-human messaging
anti-colonialism messaging
anti-capitalism messaging
anti-heterosexual messaging
anti-patriarchy messaging
anti-white messaging
anti-family messaging
anti-free speech messaging
anti-gun messaging
etc.

On 11/27/2024 1:59 AM, JAB wrote:
> On 26/11/2024 15:25, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>> On 11/26/2024 12:27 AM, JAB wrote:
>>> On 25/11/2024 19:22, Zaghadka wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 10:09:49 +0000, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
>>>> JAB
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I've
>>>>> never played the game but I saw a talking head on YouTube saying it's
>>>>> woke (whatever that actually means) crowd.
>>>>
>>>> "Woke" means, "You're tickling my well orchestrated cognitive
>>>> dissonance
>>>> coping mechanisms. Stop that!"
>>>>
>>>
>>> I just find it weird that people can be so rabidly anti something
>>> when they can't really explain what it is beyond things I don't like.
>>> See also labelling something socialist, or even Marxist, when they
>>> don't even know what they are.
>>>
>>> We even had our last government try and get in on the act when judges
>>> were ruling that a country doesn't just become classed as safe
>>> because the government say it is no more than they can pass a law
>>> that says the moon is made of cheese. That's not how laws work but
>>> that only cost £750mil so not a problem really.
>>>
>> "My <insert deity of choice> says 'That's Wrong!'"
>>
>
> From the woke detector Steam Group. Honestly I'm just not sure whether
> it's an elaborate prank or not.
>
At least in the USA its not a prank. Here all the "Anti-Woke" "Culture
War" shit is based on religious beliefs with a dash of wishing for a
society based on the imagined version of 1950s America, complete with
massive racism.

> “Woke” content = any images, messages, characters, storytelling,
> dialogue, music, or game mechanics that include themes associated with
> the left-side of the political aisle in contemporary western politics.
>
> These themes include things like:
> pro-LGBTQ+ messaging
> pro-DEI messaging
> pro-climate action messaging
> pro-communism/socialism messaging
> pro-abortion messaging
> pro-pedophilia messaging
> pro-immigration messaging
> pro-transhumanism messaging
> anti-western society messaging
> anti-human messaging
> anti-colonialism messaging
> anti-capitalism messaging
> anti-heterosexual messaging
> anti-patriarchy messaging
> anti-white messaging
> anti-family messaging
> anti-free speech messaging
> anti-gun messaging
> etc.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Wed, 27 Nov 2024 07:30:03 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

>On 11/27/2024 1:59 AM, JAB wrote:
>> On 26/11/2024 15:25, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>> On 11/26/2024 12:27 AM, JAB wrote:
>>>> On 25/11/2024 19:22, Zaghadka wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 10:09:49 +0000, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
>>>>> JAB
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I've
>>>>>> never played the game but I saw a talking head on YouTube saying it's
>>>>>> woke (whatever that actually means) crowd.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Woke" means, "You're tickling my well orchestrated cognitive
>>>>> dissonance
>>>>> coping mechanisms. Stop that!"
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I just find it weird that people can be so rabidly anti something
>>>> when they can't really explain what it is beyond things I don't like.
>>>> See also labelling something socialist, or even Marxist, when they
>>>> don't even know what they are.
>>>>
>>>> We even had our last government try and get in on the act when judges
>>>> were ruling that a country doesn't just become classed as safe
>>>> because the government say it is no more than they can pass a law
>>>> that says the moon is made of cheese. That's not how laws work but
>>>> that only cost £750mil so not a problem really.
>>>>
>>> "My <insert deity of choice> says 'That's Wrong!'"
>>>
>>
>> From the woke detector Steam Group. Honestly I'm just not sure whether
>> it's an elaborate prank or not.
>>
>At least in the USA its not a prank. Here all the "Anti-Woke" "Culture
>War" shit is based on religious beliefs with a dash of wishing for a
>society based on the imagined version of 1950s America, complete with
>massive racism.

I really debated whether nor not to get involved in this conversation,
because csipga is sort of my 'safe space' from that sort of
nonsense... but yeah. The entire anti-woke movement --and what's going
on in America in general-- is extremely dismaying. What is now called
'woke' used to be called common sense, fairness and social
responsibility, and to see an entire nation turn their back on that
ideal... it's heart-breaking. Terrifying and enraging too, but mostly
heart-breaking to see a country turn its back on what it used to stand
for.

But while I really didn't want to get into another discussion about
the topic --and especially not here-- neither did I want to sit on the
sidelines saying nothing, implying you're the only one upset about it.

That's really all I wanted to say.

On 11/27/2024 1:53 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Nov 2024 07:30:03 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> On 11/27/2024 1:59 AM, JAB wrote:
>>> On 26/11/2024 15:25, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>>> On 11/26/2024 12:27 AM, JAB wrote:
>>>>> On 25/11/2024 19:22, Zaghadka wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 10:09:49 +0000, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
>>>>>> JAB
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've
>>>>>>> never played the game but I saw a talking head on YouTube saying it's
>>>>>>> woke (whatever that actually means) crowd.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Woke" means, "You're tickling my well orchestrated cognitive
>>>>>> dissonance
>>>>>> coping mechanisms. Stop that!"
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I just find it weird that people can be so rabidly anti something
>>>>> when they can't really explain what it is beyond things I don't like.
>>>>> See also labelling something socialist, or even Marxist, when they
>>>>> don't even know what they are.
>>>>>
>>>>> We even had our last government try and get in on the act when judges
>>>>> were ruling that a country doesn't just become classed as safe
>>>>> because the government say it is no more than they can pass a law
>>>>> that says the moon is made of cheese. That's not how laws work but
>>>>> that only cost £750mil so not a problem really.
>>>>>
>>>> "My <insert deity of choice> says 'That's Wrong!'"
>>>>
>>>
>>> From the woke detector Steam Group. Honestly I'm just not sure whether
>>> it's an elaborate prank or not.
>>>
>> At least in the USA its not a prank. Here all the "Anti-Woke" "Culture
>> War" shit is based on religious beliefs with a dash of wishing for a
>> society based on the imagined version of 1950s America, complete with
>> massive racism.
>
> I really debated whether nor not to get involved in this conversation,
> because csipga is sort of my 'safe space' from that sort of
> nonsense... but yeah. The entire anti-woke movement --and what's going
> on in America in general-- is extremely dismaying. What is now called
> 'woke' used to be called common sense, fairness and social
> responsibility, and to see an entire nation turn their back on that
> ideal... it's heart-breaking. Terrifying and enraging too, but mostly
> heart-breaking to see a country turn its back on what it used to stand
> for.
>
> But while I really didn't want to get into another discussion about
> the topic --and especially not here-- neither did I want to sit on the
> sidelines saying nothing, implying you're the only one upset about it.
>
> That's really all I wanted to say.
>
I understand fully and I actually do try to minimize my ... commentary,
but what I see happening to my country makes me very angry.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 27/11/2024 15:30, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>> From the woke detector Steam Group. Honestly I'm just not sure whether
>> it's an elaborate prank or not.
>>
> At least in the USA its not a prank.  Here all the "Anti-Woke" "Culture
> War" shit is based on religious beliefs with a dash of wishing for a
> society based on the imagined version of 1950s America, complete with
> massive racism.

Fortunately in the UK it's never really gathered much traction with the
public regardless of how much our last government, and its client media,
pushed it as an issue. What people actual care about is rising energy,
food and mortgage costs and also our crumbling public services. Saying
that if all the things that people worry about are your fault then it's
probably best to push a different agenda.

In terms of games the whole anti-woke thing seems driven by a bunch of
self-entitled fools who would seem to be want to be told what they are
supposed to be enraged by today. It's not as though there can't be valid
commentary on games 'pushing' a certain agenda but there's literally
thousands of games out there so if you get upset because a game doesn't
have attractive females with their breasts half hanging out then, well
play one of other games that you can bash the bishop too.

On 27/11/2024 21:53, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Nov 2024 07:30:03 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> On 11/27/2024 1:59 AM, JAB wrote:
>>> On 26/11/2024 15:25, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>>> On 11/26/2024 12:27 AM, JAB wrote:
>>>>> On 25/11/2024 19:22, Zaghadka wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 10:09:49 +0000, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
>>>>>> JAB
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've
>>>>>>> never played the game but I saw a talking head on YouTube saying it's
>>>>>>> woke (whatever that actually means) crowd.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Woke" means, "You're tickling my well orchestrated cognitive
>>>>>> dissonance
>>>>>> coping mechanisms. Stop that!"
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I just find it weird that people can be so rabidly anti something
>>>>> when they can't really explain what it is beyond things I don't like.
>>>>> See also labelling something socialist, or even Marxist, when they
>>>>> don't even know what they are.
>>>>>
>>>>> We even had our last government try and get in on the act when judges
>>>>> were ruling that a country doesn't just become classed as safe
>>>>> because the government say it is no more than they can pass a law
>>>>> that says the moon is made of cheese. That's not how laws work but
>>>>> that only cost £750mil so not a problem really.
>>>>>
>>>> "My <insert deity of choice> says 'That's Wrong!'"
>>>>
>>>
>>> From the woke detector Steam Group. Honestly I'm just not sure whether
>>> it's an elaborate prank or not.
>>>
>> At least in the USA its not a prank. Here all the "Anti-Woke" "Culture
>> War" shit is based on religious beliefs with a dash of wishing for a
>> society based on the imagined version of 1950s America, complete with
>> massive racism.
>
> I really debated whether nor not to get involved in this conversation,
> because csipga is sort of my 'safe space' from that sort of
> nonsense... but yeah. The entire anti-woke movement --and what's going
> on in America in general-- is extremely dismaying. What is now called
> 'woke' used to be called common sense, fairness and social
> responsibility, and to see an entire nation turn their back on that
> ideal... it's heart-breaking. Terrifying and enraging too, but mostly
> heart-breaking to see a country turn its back on what it used to stand
> for.
>
> But while I really didn't want to get into another discussion about
> the topic --and especially not here-- neither did I want to sit on the
> sidelines saying nothing, implying you're the only one upset about it.
>
> That's really all I wanted to say.
>

Well I did mention it in the terms of games :-)

On Wed, 27 Nov 2024 18:25:22 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

>I understand fully and I actually do try to minimize my ... commentary,
>but what I see happening to my country makes me very angry.

Please don't take my earlier comment as a criticism or taking you to
task for being a bit off-topic. That wasn't my intent. I've no
objection there.

I was just showing support without wanting to actually have to get
into it myself.

On 11/28/2024 7:51 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Nov 2024 18:25:22 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> I understand fully and I actually do try to minimize my ... commentary,
>> but what I see happening to my country makes me very angry.
>
> Please don't take my earlier comment as a criticism or taking you to
> task for being a bit off-topic. That wasn't my intent. I've no
> objection there.
>
> I was just showing support without wanting to actually have to get
> into it myself.
>
No offense was taken.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.