Would it work for a Vampire?

[Killer Cyborg]

I guess that I need to go back to ESL class. Again. What relevance does complete sentences have anyway? Did you not understand me?

Bingo.
I don't understand you.

When I ask for you to state your point, I'm looking for clarity.
Cutting and pasting a sentence fragment that you already posted does not provide any clarity.

Both sentences can mean the same thing.
Depending on which definitions of each word you are going by.

So I wonder why you said this to me:

That is a great example of a random claim with neither evidence nor indication of any truth to it.

Because at that time you had provided neither evidence nor indication of truth to your claim.

Conversation went like this:
I explained the distinction I was making between "evidence" and "indication"
You claimed that the two words mean exactly the same thing.
I asked why you believe that, looking for the reason why you believe that.
You simply restated the claim, which doesn't provide any insight into how the hell you came to that conclusion.
Which was irritating.
I could have responded by doing your homework for you and looking up evidence to back up your claim, but since you weren't being cooperative, I didn't feel the need to be cooperative either.

Like I said, the weight we arbitrarily give dictated by our opinion to one or the other is irrelevant. Even the context does not clearly differentiate. It is a human factor that differentiates because it can go either way.

That has been my point all along..

Maybe, but it's not what you've been saying.

Lack of indication means that there's no reason to believe that whatever isn't being indicated is true.

Not quite. It means you may choose to believe that there's no reason to believe....

No, it literally means that there is no reason to believe it.
There's nothing pointing to the notion that X is true, so there is no reason to believe in it.

IF there was a reason to believe in it, then there would be some indication that X were true.

[DocS]

(On whethere sunlight is magical)
Good luck finding that.

I'll just settle for the complete and utter lack of any indication that it IS magical.

Well, *other* then the fact that the sun and sunlight do a plethora of quantifiable magical things, such as manipulate ley lines. Seeing as how the effects of solstices and eclipses are a focus of the *Magic* section.... evidently sunlight and moonlight are magical. Why do you think most magic classes get *Astronomy*?

Weren't you the guy who discussed whether sunlight and moonlight were different, "Magically speaking". Wouldn't that be kind of meaningless, if neither had any magical element at all?

Pick a side. Either sunlight is not magical at all, at which point moonlight is nothing but weakened sunlight, then vamps should take damage from intensified moonlight..... OR......Sunlight and moonlight are different via some intangible 'magical' component, at which point, one or both of them needs a 'magical' component. Then we can discuss what *other* celestial bodies would have the prerequisite magical component needed to harm vampires.

You don't just get to jump back and forth between the two ideas and say sunlight is magical when it suits you, but that it's not when it doesn't.... Check that, you do get to do that...... no one will stop you, but it makes things look really really silly.

(on the basis behind exactly *which *star hurts vamps)

Just pointing out that I'm right.

On this you're simply declaring yourself correct without any basis. That's one way to do it, I can't argue with you one it, since neither of us has any information... except for this, I've asked twice for some shred of evidence or logic on your part to back this up.... and have twice recieved one sentence "Oh, I'm just right".

[Killer Cyborg]

(On whethere sunlight is magical)
Good luck finding that.

I'll just settle for the complete and utter lack of any indication that it IS magical.

Well, *other* then the fact that the sun and sunlight do a plethora of quantifiable magical things, such as manipulate ley lines. Seeing as how the effects of solstices and eclipses are a focus of the *Magic* section.... evidently sunlight and moonlight are magical. Why do you think most magic classes get *Astronomy*?

What we know is that ley lines are stronger at certain times than at others.
That doesn't mean that sunlight is magical.

Weren't you the guy who discussed whether sunlight and moonlight were different, "Magically speaking".

Yup.

Wouldn't that be kind of meaningless, if neither had any magical element at all?

Nope.

Pick a side. Either sunlight is not magical at all, at which point moonlight is nothing but weakened sunlight, then vamps should take damage from intensified moonlight..... OR......Sunlight and moonlight are different via some intangible 'magical' component, at which point, one or both of them needs a 'magical' component.

False dichotomy, based on the assumption that something has to be magical in order to interact with magic.
Sunlight and Moonlight are different as far as magic is concerned, but that doesn't necessarily make them magic.

Then we can discuss what *other* celestial bodies would have the prerequisite magical component needed to harm vampires.

Just suns.

You don't just get to jump back and forth between the two ideas and say sunlight is magical when it suits you, but that it's not when it doesn't.... Check that, you do get to do that...... no one will stop you, but it makes things look really really silly.

I'll let you know when I start doing that.

(on the basis behind exactly *which *star hurts vamps)

Just pointing out that I'm right.

On this you're simply declaring yourself correct without any basis. That's one way to do it, I can't argue with you one it, since neither of us has any information... except for this, I've asked twice for some shred of evidence or logic on your part to back this up.... and have twice recieved one sentence "Oh, I'm just right".[/quote]

Yup.
Glad you get that.

Although I have given you a shred of logic.
"Stars" are not the same as "Suns" as far as vampires are concerned.
This is obvious, since vamps aren't hurt by starlight.

So there's clearly a difference between stars and suns.
Let's check Dictionary.com:

sun /sʌn/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[suhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation, noun, verb, sunned, sun·ning.
–noun
1. (often initial capital letter) the star that is the central body of the solar system, around which the planets revolve and from which they receive light and heat

A little logic will tell you that this is likely the difference.
Vampires are vulnerable to whichever star is the central body of the solar system they are currently in.

[Natasha]

When I ask for you to state your point, I'm looking for clarity.
Cutting and pasting a sentence fragment that you already posted does not provide any clarity.

Then ask for clarity and stop expecting people to read your mind.

Both sentences can mean the same thing.
Depending on which definitions of each word you are going by.

So I wonder why you said this to me:

That is a great example of a random claim with neither evidence nor indication of any truth to it.

Because at that time you had provided neither evidence nor indication of truth to your claim.

This is so thin that there is nothing there.

The claim was not great not even great by any means.

It was not random by any means.

Claims are made all the time without evidence or indication of truth. This is just nit picking.

I could have responded by doing your homework for you and looking up evidence to back up your claim, but since you weren't being cooperative, I didn't feel the need to be cooperative either.

Homework?

There was nothing uncooperative doing exactly as you asked...

Restate it.

That is precisely what he did. Nothing uncooperative there.

Like I said, the weight we arbitrarily give dictated by our opinion to one or the other is irrelevant. Even the context does not clearly differentiate. It is a human factor that differentiates because it can go either way.

That has been my point all along..

Maybe, but it's not what you've been saying.

Actually that was exactly what was being said. It is not any of his fault you did not get it or pick up on it. The point was demonstrated with clarity. You picked your definitions to back up your claim and he picked his to back up his. And that demonstrated his point. And, yes, he said those words early on, too. He both was saying them and demonstrating them.

There's nothing pointing to the notion that X is true, so there is no reason to believe in it.

Funny, coming from you.

IF there was a reason to believe in it, then there would be some indication that X were true.

Science disagrees. This is exactly one method of discovery.

I'll just settle for the complete and utter lack of any indication that it IS magical.

Or that it is not.

What we know is that ley lines are stronger at certain times than at others.
That doesn't mean that sunlight is magical.

Or that it is not.

There is indication that it is magical. Since the times being spoken about are directly linked to the sun after all. You can claim coincidence and you might even be correct. But you cannot say there is a complete and utter lack of indication.

Weren't you the guy who discussed whether sunlight and moonlight were different, "Magically speaking".

And speaking from a foundation you claim has complete and utter lack of anything to base upon. If the nature of the sun is not discussed, how can you?

Yup.
Glad you get that.

This is just not cooperative, childish, and reflects poorly on you. Go ahead and thumbs up, drive it home.

Although I have given you a shred of logic.
"Stars" are not the same as "Suns" as far as vampires are concerned.
This is obvious, since vamps aren't hurt by starlight.

Can I get a book and page number refrence please?

And furthermore can I get an explanation of why you think this passes as logic?

A little logic will tell you that this is likely the difference.
Vampires are vulnerable to whichever star is the central body of the solar system they are currently in.

Let me know when the logic starts.

[cornholioprime]

Neither Silver nor Wood nor Sunlight nor Running Water nor Garlic are magical substances in and of themselves.


Which is totally, completely irrelevant to the issue of Vampires.

These items don't radiate some sort of hidden magic which causes Palladium Vampires damage.

Palladium Vampires are simply mystically vulnerable to these substances (just as they are mystically invulnerable to almost everything else). No magic energy figures into the equation whatsoever.

It's not that complicated, and there's no hidden reason "behind the scenes" to try to go and dig up.

[DocS]

What we know is that ley lines are stronger at certain times than at others.
That doesn't mean that sunlight is magical.

Noo, we know that ley lines...... are stonger dependent on where the sun is in the sky and *particularly* dependent on whether the moon is blocking the sun or not..... It certainly goes to a definite link and 'magical aspect' of sunlight... essentially, "Mystically speaking" the sun has to have a little something.... If it didn't...... then it wouldn't be such a focus for *mages*.

False dichotomy, based on the assumption that something has to be magical in order to interact with magic.
Sunlight and Moonlight are different as far as magic is concerned, but that doesn't necessarily make them magic.

Well sunlight and moonlight are the same in every *non-magic* way except for intensity (which you don't say is important)...... which means the difference has to be a magic one. It's a great test for whether there is a magic component, find two things that are identicle in every non-magic way, and see if they have different mystic effects. If I showed you two swords, identicle in every non-magical way (Same metal, same wieght, same sharpness, etc) and one of them damaged vampires and one of them didn't... the assumption would be that at least one of the swords is magic. The same for beams of light.

Although I have given you a shred of logic.
"Stars" are not the same as "Suns" as far as vampires are concerned.
This is obvious, since vamps aren't hurt by starlight.

Very good, and I note... that is where canon stops. No further evidence is given in any of the books exactly what is the reason for that. Intensity? Magical attunement? Light spectrum (are vamps immune to red stars?). Simply no information is given. There is simply no information given with which one can determine what the difference is, despite the fact that vampires can get shot into space. That's OK, if you're one to think that gaming rules are not exhaustive and sometimes you have to shoot from the hip.

So there's clearly a difference between stars and suns.
Let's check Dictionary.com:

sun /sʌn/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[suhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation, noun, verb, sunned, sun·ning.
–noun
1. (often initial capital letter) the star that is the central body of the solar system, around which the planets revolve and from which they receive light and heat

Firstly, Why post definitions and not read them carefully? that definition, as posted, only discusses our sun. *THE* star, *THE* solar system, Capital letter (For proper nouns) it's very explicit, there's only one. By that definition, there is only one star in the Megaverse that hurts vampires.

Secondly, do you have anything in canon to back you up? Canon differs from dictionary.com in many ways.

Thirdly. the *loosest* reading.... any star with planets around it can be 'a sun'. So then, Vampires should theoretically be vulnerable to only stars... which have planets orbiting them?

Vampire: I was kicked out of an airlock spinning outside Ceti Cygnus!

Friend: How did you survive?

Vampire: It was *easy*. Ceti Syngus has no planets! It's not a 'sun', not by any definition! It's only a 'star', I was immune!

A little logic will tell you that this is likely the difference.
Vampires are vulnerable to whichever star is the central body of the solar system they are currently in.

A little logic tells you that vampires are immune to stars which have no planets around them (and thus 'no solar system')?.

All logic tells you is that there is something unique about The Sun. However, a quick list of some of the things that, from our perspective, make the Sun unique, and there's simply no way, from canon or from dictionary.com, to determine exactly *what* it is.

The Sun.. Uniquely close

The Sun... Unique in that's it's 'the star of our homeland'

The Sun... Unique in it's spectral fingerprint (no stars' light has *exactly* the same emission of light as our sun does).

The Sun... Our Sun has been worshipped so much that is is arguably a holy artifact! Take THAT Alpha Centauri! We know Vampires are vulnerable to holy things.... maybe *that's* the reason (Holy water works... maybe sunlight is holy light!). The Moon hasn't been worshipped as much, so perhaps it's not reached the 'critical spiritual mass'.

The Sun,... The only star which has a movie made about it by Donny Boyle. Silly? well, that's as likely as anything else.

Is it The Sun and our atmosphere interacting to produce *just* the right kind of light? Do you need an ozone layer? Are vampires invulnerable to The Sun on Mars? Canon doesn't say what it is, and it only discusses vampires on Earth.

I'm leaning towards the 'holy light' theory, myself. At first I thought I was being facetious, and then once the sheer *level* of sun worship that has occurred over the history of Mankind.... that think has gotta be pimped out spiritually like nobody's business!

But "A little logic' tells me... there just isn't information to solve the problem. The second thing the logic tells me, is that given three chances, the biggest rules-lawyer on the board hasn't given one applicable rule on it.

[cornholioprime]

Without responding to the entirety of DamonS's previous post, I need to point out to him that he is in error about Vampiric susceptibility to the Sun applying ONLY to the Sun on Rifts Earth:

He can check in Sourcebooks as diverse as "Gods and Dragons," "Pantheons of the Megaverse," and the "Phase World Sourcebook" to see instances of vampires being mystically vulnerable to the sunlight on ANY world.

Nothing special about Sol, nor is it magical.

Nor is it necessary, from the flavor of the many canon texts on this subject, for the star in question to have a series of planets attached.

The only apparent requisite for a star to go from being harmless to a vampire to killing it as a sun, is the point at which a given star's light/magnitude/luminosity approaches that of a sun instead of just one more star in the sky.

Our own Sun, with a vampire caught out in it on Planets Mercury through, say, Jupiter?? Deadly.

Maybe on planets Saturn and Neptune, the overall effect to the vamp might be no more serious than Globe of Daylight.

But a vampire who comes out in the "daytime" on Planet X?? To that vampire, the Sun is probably no more harmful than any other star in the sky.

[Killer Cyborg]

What we know is that ley lines are stronger at certain times than at others.
That doesn't mean that sunlight is magical.

Noo, we know that ley lines...... are stonger dependent on where the sun is in the sky and *particularly* dependent on whether the moon is blocking the sun or not..... It certainly goes to a definite link and 'magical aspect' of sunlight... essentially, "Mystically speaking" the sun has to have a little something.... If it didn't...... then it wouldn't be such a focus for *mages*.

Cite the passages that you think back that.

False dichotomy, based on the assumption that something has to be magical in order to interact with magic.
Sunlight and Moonlight are different as far as magic is concerned, but that doesn't necessarily make them magic.

Well sunlight and moonlight are the same in every *non-magic* way except for intensity (which you don't say is important)...... which means the difference has to be a magic one. It's a great test for whether there is a magic component, find two things that are identicle in every non-magic way, and see if they have different mystic effects. If I showed you two swords, identicle in every non-magical way (Same metal, same wieght, same sharpness, etc) and one of them damaged vampires and one of them didn't... the assumption would be that at least one of the swords is magic. The same for beams of light.

But, again, the magic isn't with the light; it's with the vampires.

Say there's a supernatural creature that is vulnerable to rocks thrown by children.
Same rocks thrown by adults don't hurt it.
The rocks themselves aren't magic.

Same with vampires.
They're vulnerable to sunlight.
Same light bounced off of a different celestial body doesn't hurt it.
Nothing magic about the light itself; just about the vampires.

Although I have given you a shred of logic.
"Stars" are not the same as "Suns" as far as vampires are concerned.
This is obvious, since vamps aren't hurt by starlight.

Very good, and I note... that is where canon stops. No further evidence is given in any of the books exactly what is the reason for that. Intensity? Magical attunement? Light spectrum (are vamps immune to red stars?). Simply no information is given.

And that's where logic takes over.
At least, that's what happens for me.

So there's clearly a difference between stars and suns.
Let's check Dictionary.com:

sun /s?n/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[suhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation, noun, verb, sunned, sun·ning.
–noun
1. (often initial capital letter) the star that is the central body of the solar system, around which the planets revolve and from which they receive light and heat

Firstly, Why post definitions and not read them carefully? that definition, as posted, only discusses our sun. *THE* star, *THE* solar system, Capital letter (For proper nouns) it's very explicit, there's only one. By that definition, there is only one star in the Megaverse that hurts vampires.

Like most dictionaries, this one was written for people on Earth.
In any other solar system, the definition would be the same though:
THE central star that is the central body of THE solar system".
It applies to whichever solar system the reader is in at the time.

Secondly, do you have anything in canon to back you up? Canon differs from dictionary.com in many ways.

Just common sense, combined with the fact that vampires in every setting are vulnerable to whatever sun happens to be overhead.
But if you doubt me, write K.S. and tell him your "Vampires across the megaverse are only vulnerable to Sol" theory.

Thirdly. the *loosest* reading.... any star with planets around it can be 'a sun'. So then, Vampires should theoretically be vulnerable to only stars... which have planets orbiting them?

Actually, while it mentions that the planets orbit around the sun, the main definition is:
"the star that is the central body of the solar system"

But "A little logic' tells me... there just isn't information to solve the problem.

Maybe not for you.
I have enough information; I've solved it.

The second thing the logic tells me, is that given three chances, the biggest rules-lawyer on the board hasn't given one applicable rule on it.

Thank you. It's nice to be recognized as the best.

[Killer Cyborg]

When I ask for you to state your point, I'm looking for clarity.
Cutting and pasting a sentence fragment that you already posted does not provide any clarity.

Then ask for clarity and stop expecting people to read your mind.

You're obviously new to this conversation, so I'm curious why you're jumping in now.
But I'll repeat the relevent part for you:

The distinction I place is that indication isn't as strong as evidence.

Which would be incorrect.

Explain.

Because indication and evidence are interchangable.

It does not matter what arbitrary strength or weight you or I assign to these words.

He made a claim.
I asked him to EXPLAIN the claim.
He essentially repeated the claim, providing no clarity.
That's not EXPLAINING the claim.

No mind reading needed to understand the word "Explain", just the usual type of reading.

[Killer Cyborg]

IF there was a reason to believe in it, then there would be some indication that X were true.

Science disagrees. This is exactly one method of discovery.

Hm.
Nope, I don't think that "believing in things for no reason" is a method of scientific discovery.

And speaking from a foundation you claim has complete and utter lack of anything to base upon. If the nature of the sun is not discussed, how can you?

Because IF the sun (and sunlight) were considered magical, then it would be mentioned somewhere in the books.
It would be mentioned under dogboys and Psi-stalkers that sunlight trips their Sense Psychic and Magic Energy ability, for example.
Or it would inflict mega-damage after the ley-lines got beefed up.
Or mages could suck PPE out of it.
Or the Sense Magic psionic power would have a note about sunlight detecting as magic.

Yup.
Glad you get that.

This is just not cooperative, childish, and reflects poorly on you. Go ahead and thumbs up, drive it home.

I'm sorry that you feel that being right reflects poorly on me.

Although I have given you a shred of logic.
"Stars" are not the same as "Suns" as far as vampires are concerned.
This is obvious, since vamps aren't hurt by starlight.

Can I get a book and page number refrence please?
And furthermore can I get an explanation of why you think this passes as logic?

Book: Vampire Kingdoms
Pages: Any page that mentions vampires running around at night.

Logically speaking, IF vampires were harmed by starlight, then they could not safely run around at night (at least not on a clear night).
Vampires DO run around safely at night.
Ergo, vampires are not harmed by starlight (or moonlight).

A little logic will tell you that this is likely the difference.
Vampires are vulnerable to whichever star is the central body of the solar system they are currently in.

Let me know when the logic starts.

In my first post.
Let me know when you catch up.

[Natasha]

I have been reading this from the start. I am not new to the conversation. You need to hone your sense of the obvious. I am participating because your behaviour boggles my mind and I hope to gain understanding why you can demand logic and accept illogic depending on which side of your mouth you are speaking.

He made a claim.
I asked him to EXPLAIN the claim.
He essentially repeated the claim, providing no clarity.
That's not EXPLAINING the claim.

No mind reading needed to understand the word "Explain", just the usual type of reading.

He explained that your distinction was incorrect when he said "because ...". That is an explanation. You never again asked to explain or clarify, only restate.

IF there was a reason to believe in it, then there would be some indication that X were true.

Science disagrees. This is exactly one method of discovery.

Hm.
Nope, I don't think that "believing in things for no reason" is a method of scientific discovery.

That is fine to think so. But you think wrong. Sorry.

Hypotheses are sometimes littered with guesses and statements that have "no reason to believe".

And speaking from a foundation you claim has complete and utter lack of anything to base upon. If the nature of the sun is not discussed, how can you?

Because IF the sun (and sunlight) were considered magical, then it would be mentioned somewhere in the books.
It would be mentioned under dogboys and Psi-stalkers that sunlight trips their Sense Psychic and Magic Energy ability, for example.
Or it would inflict mega-damage after the ley-lines got beefed up.
Or mages could suck PPE out of it.
Or the Sense Magic psionic power would have a note about sunlight detecting as magic.

I have no problem with your inference. What I am asking you to answer is why do you think your inference is any more correct than another's inference based on the same complete and utter lack of anything?

Yup.
Glad you get that.

This is just not cooperative, childish, and reflects poorly on you. Go ahead and thumbs up, drive it home.

I'm sorry that you feel that being right reflects poorly on me.

I did not say being right reflects poorly on you.

What I said was your unccoperative and childish behaviour reflects poorly on you.

Duh. Pay attention if you are going to participate. And if you decide to employ sarcasm you have to pay double attention because it only magnifies the gap when you swing and miss.

Although I have given you a shred of logic.
"Stars" are not the same as "Suns" as far as vampires are concerned.
This is obvious, since vamps aren't hurt by starlight.

Can I get a book and page number refrence please?
And furthermore can I get an explanation of why you think this passes as logic?

Book: Vampire Kingdoms
Pages: Any page that mentions vampires running around at night.

Ok, I do not have that book. Do these pages capitalise sun as you do? Why do you make the leap from "star being on the other side of the planet means it is different from all the stars you can see in the sky?" That is terribly illogical if the only conclusion you accept is that they must be different. Because a creature walking around in this case is not hurt by the other stars and therefore the only conclusion must be all those stars are different from the one on the other side of the planet?

Your interpretation is not the only one. And definitely not the most logical one. At least not if you even marginally interested in actual science.

Logically speaking, IF vampires were harmed by starlight, then they could not safely run around at night (at least not on a clear night).
Vampires DO run around safely at night.
Ergo, vampires are not harmed by starlight (or moonlight).

Like I said, you can drive to this conclusion very easily, but that does not grant the conclusion absolute truth, necessarily. Again, not saying you are wrong, I am just saying you cannot claim to be exclusively right. Well, you can (and do), but it is wrong to do so.

Nothing is better than Coke.
Pepsi is better than nothing.
Ergo, Pepsi is better than Coke.

A little logic will tell you that this is likely the difference.
Vampires are vulnerable to whichever star is the central body of the solar system they are currently in.

Let me know when the logic starts.

In my first post.
Let me know when you catch up.

A little logic will tell you that this is not the only difference. Or if you think it is the only difference, why? Distance can be the differnce. Intensity can be the difference. All of them arrived at with a little logic.

This was your first post.

Vampires are mystically vulnerable to light from the sun.
This has nothing to do with the physical properties of the light hitting them, so radiation, wavelength, brightness, etc. have no bearing on whether vampires are affected; only whether the light comes directly from the sun.

By this post there is no distinction between sun and star, at least not by anyone remotely familiar with fundamental astronomy. You really should have been more clear. It very well could have everything to do with the physical properties. You cannot say this and expect a logical thinker to not disagree. And claiming being right just because you find it self-gratifying on your self-made pedastal and think it makes you cool or whatever it is that goes through your head when you start acting like a child does not make it so. If St. Anselm could not define God into existance you cannot define yourself into being right.

However, once again, you have have failed to address the issue by deflection and distraction. Do you see that I was reacting to your claim to "a little logic" and not your first post? Your ego and arrogance have blinded you? Why do you pick and choose so obviously unfairly? Why do you think you are right all the time? Everyone that warned me about you were right. Unless you change your attitude, I will not be able to take you seriously, which means that I will not be able to have a conversation with you. Not that I expect that to bother you.

[lather]

All light that reaches the earth is direct starlight. No celestial body generates light except stars. The sun is a star. The notion that intensity a tiny beam of starlight billions of miles away makes sense to me. Stars twinkle. Planets and the Moon do not. If bouncing off an object or any other interaction means light is no longer direct, then atmosphere is enough to protect a vampire.

Could go in many ways and that comes to the game master or as just about everyone is trying to point out, personal choice.

[Killer Cyborg]

Logically speaking, IF vampires were harmed by starlight, then they could not safely run around at night (at least not on a clear night).
Vampires DO run around safely at night.
Ergo, vampires are not harmed by starlight (or moonlight).

Logically my mathematical model based in light intensity is more accurate and accounts for the fact that stars are simply too far away to do damage, hence allowing, although not exclusively supporting, the theory that all stars may affect any vampire from any system based on distance.

Therefore the truth of vampire damage must be a gamesmaster decision or house rule as there is not enough information to inductively conclude what does what to which vampires. The deductive reasoning however will never be conclusive due to the fact you all seem to have an idea of the conclusion despite lack of evidence one way or the other.

Probably the best rebuttal anyone's made.

The thing is, moonlight is a lot brighter than starlight, and it doesn't hurt vampires.
But indirect sunlight does, IIRC, regardless of brightness. Vampires on a cloudy day still get burned, for example.

[Killer Cyborg]

I have been reading this from the start. I am not new to the conversation. You need to hone your sense of the obvious.

Huh.
Then I really don't know what's going on with your posts.

He made a claim.
I asked him to EXPLAIN the claim.
He essentially repeated the claim, providing no clarity.
That's not EXPLAINING the claim.

No mind reading needed to understand the word "Explain", just the usual type of reading.

He explained that your distinction was incorrect when he said "because ...". That is an explanation. You never again asked to explain or clarify, only restate.

Uh, no....
"Explain" does not mean "restate".
Really.

I don't think that "believing in things for no reason" is a method of scientific discovery.

That is fine to think so. But you think wrong. Sorry.

Hypotheses are sometimes littered with guesses and statements that have "no reason to believe".

Not at all; there is always some reason.

And speaking from a foundation you claim has complete and utter lack of anything to base upon. If the nature of the sun is not discussed, how can you?

Because IF the sun (and sunlight) were considered magical, then it would be mentioned somewhere in the books.
It would be mentioned under dogboys and Psi-stalkers that sunlight trips their Sense Psychic and Magic Energy ability, for example.
Or it would inflict mega-damage after the ley-lines got beefed up.
Or mages could suck PPE out of it.
Or the Sense Magic psionic power would have a note about sunlight detecting as magic.

I have no problem with your inference. What I am asking you to answer is why do you think your inference is any more correct than another's inference based on the same complete and utter lack of anything?

Because my inference is based on a lack of evidence, and his is in spite of lack of supporting evidence.

For example, take the statements:
-Horses cannot fly under their own power.
and
-Horses can fly under their own power, they just choose not to.

There is no evidence that disproves either statement, but the first claim is pretty well supported by the utter and complete lack of evidence that horses CAN fly.
We've never seen them do it.
There's no reason to believe they can do it.
Therefore, they most likely cannot do it.

But the second statement is made IN SPITE of a lack of evidence.
There's no reason to believe the claim, and there's no indication of truth, BUT for some reason the person makes the claim anyway.

Same with sunlight.

What I said was your unccoperative and childish behaviour reflects poorly on you.

Duh. Pay attention if you are going to participate. And if you decide to employ sarcasm you have to pay double attention because it only magnifies the gap when you swing and miss.

Look way over your head, 'cause that one flew right on by you.

Book: Vampire Kingdoms
Pages: Any page that mentions vampires running around at night.

Ok, I do not have that book.

Get a copy. It's quite good.

Your interpretation is not the only one. And definitely not the most logical one. At least not if you even marginally interested in actual science.

This isn't science; this is magic.

Logically speaking, IF vampires were harmed by starlight, then they could not safely run around at night (at least not on a clear night).
Vampires DO run around safely at night.
Ergo, vampires are not harmed by starlight (or moonlight).

Like I said, you can drive to this conclusion very easily, but that does not grant the conclusion absolute truth, necessarily.[/quote]

Agreed.
But I happen to be right anyway.

Again, not saying you are wrong, I am just saying you cannot claim to be exclusively right. Well, you can (and do), but it is wrong to do so.

Not if I actually AM right, which I am.

A little logic will tell you that this is likely the difference.
Vampires are vulnerable to whichever star is the central body of the solar system they are currently in.

A little logic will tell you that this is not the only difference. Or if you think it is the only difference, why? Distance can be the differnce. Intensity can be the difference. All of them arrived at with a little logic.

As I've said, weak sunlight still burns vampires.
Moonlight and starlight does not.

This was your first post.

Vampires are mystically vulnerable to light from the sun.
This has nothing to do with the physical properties of the light hitting them, so radiation, wavelength, brightness, etc. have no bearing on whether vampires are affected; only whether the light comes directly from the sun.

By this post there is no distinction between sun and star, at least not by anyone remotely familiar with fundamental astronomy.

This isn't astronomy; it's closer to astrology.
Magic isn't science.

And claiming being right just because you find it self-gratifying on your self-made pedastal and think it makes you cool or whatever it is that goes through your head when you start acting like a child does not make it so.

I'm claiming that I'm right because I am.
You can like it or not, you can believe it or not, and you can dislike how I say it all you want.
That doesn't change the fact that I'm right.

[Natasha]

Probably the best rebuttal anyone's made.

Oh my god there is nothing to rebut. There are just different ways of seeing the same thing.
You state yours, he states his, they state theirs.
There is nothing to rebut, just query for further clarification.

The thing is, moonlight is a lot brighter than starlight, and it doesn't hurt vampires.
But indirect sunlight does, IIRC, regardless of brightness. Vampires on a cloudy day still get burned, for example.

There is no such thing as moonlight. The moon does not generate light. It is starlight reflected.

And the light reflected off the moon is not brighter than starlight. Stare at sun for 10 seconds, then stare at the moon for 10 seconds. If "moonlight" as you call it is not direct starlight, then neither is starlight passing through the atmosphere direct. Then there is no direct sunlight whatsoever reaching the surface. Like I said, logic on one side, not so much on the other.

Then I really don't know what's going on with your posts.

I know. But it's ok. I will not hold it against you.

Uh, no....
"Explain" does not mean "restate".
Really.

Uh, yes.

Try to keep up.

His claim what that it is wrong to pick definitions that fit your model and make believe they preclude all others.

Claim:

The distinction I place is that indication isn't as strong as evidence.

Which would be incorrect.

Explanation:

The distinction I place is that indication isn't as strong as evidence.

Which would be incorrect.

Explain.

Because indication and evidence are interchangable.

It does not matter what arbitrary strength or weight you or I assign to these words.

You took one side and he took the other, and then correctly pointed out that neither could claim absolute right, which you agreed to on one side and then said you were absolutely right out the other side.

Not at all; there is always some reason.

Did I say all? Seriously. This is laughable.

And there is not always some reason. You can keep telling yourself that all you like but it does not change the reality that scientists have put in hypotheses claims that there is no reason to believe.

Do your homework. Or someone else has to do it for you?

Look way over your head, 'cause that one flew right on by you.

How? I said your behaviour reflects poorly on you.
You said sorry being right reflects poorly on you.
You want to say your behaviour is being right?

Get a copy. It's quite good.

Don't play Rifts though.

This isn't science; this is magic.

Then what is the role of logic? A little logic here and there until it is time to be serious and then it is just magic, bordering on astrology.

I'm claiming that I'm right because I am.
You can like it or not, you can believe it or not, and you can dislike how I say it all you want.
That doesn't change the fact that I'm right.

You drew a logical conclusion.

Let's get off the 3rd grade recess yard, ok?

[lather]

Meh.

[Killer Cyborg]

Probably the best rebuttal anyone's made.

Oh my god there is nothing to rebut. There are just different ways of seeing the same thing.

How very Tao of you.

The thing is, moonlight is a lot brighter than starlight, and it doesn't hurt vampires.
But indirect sunlight does, IIRC, regardless of brightness. Vampires on a cloudy day still get burned, for example.

There is no such thing as moonlight. The moon does not generate light. It is starlight reflected.

Scientifically, yes.
Magically, no.

And the light reflected off the moon is not brighter than starlight. Stare at sun for 10 seconds, then stare at the moon for 10 seconds. If "moonlight" as you call it is not direct starlight, then neither is starlight passing through the atmosphere direct. Then there is no direct sunlight whatsoever reaching the surface. Like I said, logic on one side, not so much on the other.

Not sure what part of that is supposed to disagree with me.

Then I really don't know what's going on with your posts.

I know. But it's ok. I will not hold it against you.

Just as well; I'm married.

Uh, no....
"Explain" does not mean "restate".
Really.

Uh, yes.

Try to keep up.

His claim what that it is wrong to pick definitions that fit your model and make believe they preclude all others.

???

When I write a sentence, I get to pick which defintions of the words I'm operating on.

Claim:

The distinction I place is that indication isn't as strong as evidence.

Which would be incorrect.

Explanation:

The distinction I place is that indication isn't as strong as evidence.

Which would be incorrect.

Explain.

Because indication and evidence are interchangable.

It does not matter what arbitrary strength or weight you or I assign to these words.

You took one side and he took the other, and then correctly pointed out that neither could claim absolute right, which you agreed to on one side and then said you were absolutely right out the other side.

Nope; once again, when I write the sentence, and then go on to explain how I'm using the terms, it makes no sense for other people to step in and "correct" me.

Otherwise I could look at your sentence and say:
"You're using the tierm "one" wrong! It means 'noting some indefinite day or time in the future'!!"

I could say that, but it would make no sense to do so.
Just like it makes no sense for somebody to claim that I was using different definitions of "evidence" and "indication" than I was obviously useing.

Not at all; there is always some reason.

Did I say all? Seriously. This is laughable.

No, you said "sometimes".
I said, "Not at all; there is always some reason."

See, what that means is that I am disagreeing with you.
You claimed "sometimes", I claimed "always".

Notice how those words mean different things?

And there is not always some reason. You can keep telling yourself that all you like but it does not change the reality that scientists have put in hypotheses claims that there is no reason to believe.

Do your homework. Or someone else has to do it for you?

It's your homework; you're the one trying to make the claim.
Support it.

Look way over your head, 'cause that one flew right on by you.

How? I said your behaviour reflects poorly on you.
You said sorry being right reflects poorly on you.
You want to say your behaviour is being right?

You somehow missed that I understood what you were saying.

And yes, my behavior is right.

Out of the two of us, you are the one who has been making personal attacks.

I've been heavily sarcastic, but I don't believe that there are any rules about that.

Get a copy. It's quite good.

Don't play Rifts though.

So why even get involved in the argument, if you don't know the material being debated?

This isn't science; this is magic.

Then what is the role of logic? A little logic here and there until it is time to be serious and then it is just magic, bordering on astrology.

Uh, it's pretty clear, from a logical standpoint, that magic and science are different things, and that they work differently.

I'm claiming that I'm right because I am.
You can like it or not, you can believe it or not, and you can dislike how I say it all you want.
That doesn't change the fact that I'm right.

You drew a logical conclusion.

Yes, and a correct one.

Let's get off the 3rd grade recess yard, ok?

As I pointed out, you are the one who's been making personal attacks.
I've managed to debate without flaming people.

[Natasha]

Just like it makes no sense for somebody to claim that I was using different definitions of "evidence" and "indication" than I was obviously useing.

I agree, no one can tell you the definitions you were using and no one was as far as I can see. Two things I saw were: 1) questioning the choice of definitions which is fair and 2) a demonstration that picking definitions to suit your needs does not really gain anything which is also fair.

The issue is not whether or not you are correct. Say you are correct all you want, that does not bother me in the least. I do not reject your conclusion or your claim that you are correct. The issue is why you think your conclusion is the only correct one. The issue is that a claim is not conclusively proved by data. That has been the only objection to you all along.

Because my inference is based on a lack of evidence, and his is in spite of lack of supporting evidence.

Is your inference the only possible inference based on a lack of evidence? If yes, please explain how. This does not explain how your inference is the only one based on a lack of evidence, it just gives an explanation of the difference between inferring from lack of evidence and inferring in spite a lack of evidence..

For example, take the statements:
-Horses cannot fly under their own power.
and
-Horses can fly under their own power, they just choose not to.

There is no evidence that disproves either statement, but the first claim is pretty well supported by the utter and complete lack of evidence that horses CAN fly.
We've never seen them do it.
There's no reason to believe they can do it.
Therefore, they most likely cannot do it.

But the second statement is made IN SPITE of a lack of evidence.
There's no reason to believe the claim, and there's no indication of truth, BUT for some reason the person makes the claim anyway.

Same with sunlight.

State it in terms of vampires and starlight or something relevant and helpful in understanding why your claim is the only correct one, please. But first, can you please state your claim in no uncertain terms? It is not at all clear when you use science, magic, logic, arbitrary definitions, and so forth.

What I am curious to know is the rational thought process that you used to arrive to your claim being the only correct drawable conclusion. If there is no rational thought process that is fine, too, but that does bring us closer to understanding why you think it is the only correct drawable conclusion. But at least we will know that there is no rational thought process.

Get a copy. It's quite good.

Don't play Rifts though.

So why even get involved in the argument, if you don't know the material being debated?

What material is being debated exactly? "The pages where vampires run around at night"? Do I really need the book for that? If so, I will borrow a copy.

This isn't science; this is magic.

Then what is the role of logic? A little logic here and there until it is time to be serious and then it is just magic, bordering on astrology.

Uh, it's pretty clear, from a logical standpoint, that magic and science are different things, and that they work differently.

What in your mind was I asking because the answer you gave has nothing to do with what I asked? I am not interested in the diffence between magic and science. What I am interested in is the role of these things and how does one determine when to use them in order to draw the same conclusion you have drawn.

Let's get off the 3rd grade recess yard, ok?

As I pointed out, you are the one who's been making personal attacks.
I've managed to debate without flaming people.

Not a flame. I have made no personal attacks either. Just a request to engage in a conversation and to answer the questions posed in a cooperative rational manner, which is something you ask of others. It is fair to ask of you, too.

[Killer Cyborg]

Just like it makes no sense for somebody to claim that I was using different definitions of "evidence" and "indication" than I was obviously useing.

I agree, no one can tell you the definitions you were using and no one was as far as I can see. Two things I saw were: 1) questioning the choice of definitions which is fair and 2) a demonstration that picking definitions to suit your needs does not really gain anything which is also fair.

uh, no.
I used the words correctly.
I went on to explain the distinction.

Then I was told that I was incorrect in my usage, which I was not.

The issue is not whether or not you are correct. Say you are correct all you want, that does not bother me in the least.

(assuming that you're switching from word usage back to the overall topic of vampires and sunlight)

It certainly seems to.

I do not reject your conclusion or your claim that you are correct. The issue is why you think your conclusion is the only correct one.

Because there can only be ONE correct answer.
We can't both be correct.

The issue is that a claim is not conclusively proved by data. That has been the only objection to you all along.

You never believe anything that isn't conclusively proved by data?

Because my inference is based on a lack of evidence, and his is in spite of lack of supporting evidence.

Is your inference the only possible inference based on a lack of evidence?

Nope.
Only the most logical one.

For example, take the statements:
-Horses cannot fly under their own power.
and
-Horses can fly under their own power, they just choose not to.

There is no evidence that disproves either statement, but the first claim is pretty well supported by the utter and complete lack of evidence that horses CAN fly.
We've never seen them do it.
There's no reason to believe they can do it.
Therefore, they most likely cannot do it.

But the second statement is made IN SPITE of a lack of evidence.
There's no reason to believe the claim, and there's no indication of truth, BUT for some reason the person makes the claim anyway.

Same with sunlight.

State it in terms of vampires and starlight or something relevant and helpful in understanding why your claim is the only correct one, please. But first, can you please state your claim in no uncertain terms? It is not at all clear when you use science, magic, logic, arbitrary definitions, and so forth.

Which claim? I've made several.
IIRC, they are:
-Sunlight is not magical.
-Sunlight is not the same as moonlight or starlight (not from a magical point of view, at least).
-"Sunlight" does not refer solely to light from the sun of our solar system in this specific dimension; it applies to light from any sun.

My original claim was:
"Vampires are mystically vulnerable to light from the sun.
This has nothing to do with the physical properties of the light hitting them, so radiation, wavelength, brightness, etc. have no bearing on whether vampires are affected; only whether the light comes directly from the sun."

What I am curious to know is the rational thought process that you used to arrive to your claim being the only correct drawable conclusion.

When did I make that claim?

Get a copy. It's quite good.

Don't play Rifts though.

So why even get involved in the argument, if you don't know the material being debated?

What material is being debated exactly? "The pages where vampires run around at night"? Do I really need the book for that? If so, I will borrow a copy.

The material being debated is Palladium's rules for vampires.
Which are fairly extensive.

This isn't science; this is magic.

Then what is the role of logic? A little logic here and there until it is time to be serious and then it is just magic, bordering on astrology.

Uh, it's pretty clear, from a logical standpoint, that magic and science are different things, and that they work differently.

What in your mind was I asking because the answer you gave has nothing to do with what I asked?

In my mind, you were asking a nonsense question.
"What is the role of logic?" is extremely vague, and is more like a zen koan than something that can be simply answered.
The rest is just attempted insults.

So I returned to the last subtopic we were on; the fact that magic and science are not the same thing, and I tried to make your question fit that.
If my answer doesn't fit your question, rephrase and try again.

I am not interested in the diffence between magic and science. What I am interested in is the role of these things and how does one determine when to use them in order to draw the same conclusion you have drawn.

So far, science hasn't really factored into the mix.

[Killer Cyborg]

Let's get off the 3rd grade recess yard, ok?

As I pointed out, you are the one who's been making personal attacks.
I've managed to debate without flaming people.

Not a flame. I have made no personal attacks either. Just a request to engage in a conversation and to answer the questions posed in a cooperative rational manner, which is something you ask of others. It is fair to ask of you, too.

"This is just not cooperative, childish, and reflects poorly on you. Go ahead and thumbs up, drive it home. "

"You need to hone your sense of the obvious"

"Do you see that I was reacting to your claim to "a little logic" and not your first post? Your ego and arrogance have blinded you?"

So far you've called me childish, unaware of the obvious, and blinded by arrogance.

Do you really think that these are a good way to go about engaging in an adult conversation?

[asajosh]

In looking at these incredibly long posts, Im forced to wonder: How do you folks keep all your quotes straight?! copy and paste in notepad or what?

[Killer Cyborg]

In looking at these incredibly long posts, Im forced to wonder: How do you folks keep all your quotes straight?! copy and paste in notepad or what?

Practice.

Also, sometimes we do screw up, although I try to go back and edit when that happens.

[asajosh]

Forum Quoting 98% +4% per level

I think KC uses the TMNT system for this skill, and can go over 100%

[lather]

It means you do not have to hunt for what people are talking about. It is a good skill to have. Personally, I think it is an interesting conversation. Ah well.

Yea and isn't telling people "you both have good points" a polite way of saying "shut up"?

[lather]

It means you do not have to hunt for what people are talking about. It is a good skill to have. Personally, I think it is an interesting conversation. Ah well.

Yea and isn't telling people "you both have good points" a polite way of saying "shut up"?

Maybe in Guy Tongue. But I was thinking along the lines of "Please read through the posts and quit trying to be so superior." I could point out good remarks and "well duh" remarks from both sides. (Do we have a shrug icon?)

Tangents and lose of focus create drag.

[lather]

Tangents and lose of focus create drag.

So does souped up cars.

You live in the sticks, too?

It is always interesting to count the number new black streaks on the straightways on the ride into work. Well it is not really interesting but it is something to do.

[lather]

They might be...

[lather]

Um, yeah, without actually reading world book 1 your going to struggle with any logic since we can use rules as a deductive and inductive basis, in any event the point has been well lost. Mainly because vampires defy logic.

I think she is more interested in Killer Cyborg's logical process that draws out his conclusion/answer than the logic of vampires. I do not know where she has gone off to but like I said I think it is an interesting conversation.

[Killer Cyborg]

I think she is more interested in Killer Cyborg's logical process that draws out his conclusion/answer than the logic of vampires. I do not know where she has gone off to but like I said I think it is an interesting conversation.

:shrug:

I'll elaborate.

The writers aren't scientists.
Furthermore, the writers are non-scientists who based their version of vampires on ancient myths/legends/movies created by people who knew little to nothing about science and who didn't include it into the lore of vampires.

The myth is that vampires are vulnerable to sunlight.
The myth is NOT that:
-Vampires are vulnerable to certain radiation wavelengths
-Vampires are vulnerable to starlight.
-Vampires are vulnerable to moonlight.
-Vampires are vulnerable to certain strengths of sunlight
-Or anything else that attempts to dissect or analyze exactly why and how they are vulnerable to sunlight.

The rules are the same way; they're not written with scientific dissection in mind.
They're fiction based on Magic, and magic by definition defies scientific explanation.

Same thing with the rest of their vulnerabilties.
Vamps are melted by running water.
Why?
Because that's the myth that the writers chose to run with.
Vamps are NOT melted by people throwing snowballs or ice at them.
Why not?
Because that's nowhere in the myths; vampires aren't vulnerable to snow/ice, they're vulnerable to water.
People can (and have, and will again) jump up and down screaming about how water, snow, and ice are all H20, but that's irrelevent because vampires are only vulnerable to water. The other forms of H20 don't matter.

Just like vampires have to sleep on soil from their homeland.
It's not that a vampire from Australia has to sleep on soil with a certain mix of sand/silt/sediment/whatever.
The exact same type of soil, scientifically speaking, could be replicated in a lab in America, right down to the molecular level, and it wouldn't do the vampire one whit of good, because it's NOT soil from his homeland.
Not mystically speaking.
Which is how we need to be speaking when it comes to vampires.
Because vampires are magic, not science.

[asajosh]

Too many people want to incorporate elements from "underworld" into their Rifts Vampires. That movie was such utter crap, please if yer friends with a psychic, mind wipe it outta there!

[lather]

Never heard of such a thing.

[Natasha]

Thank you Killer Cyborg for elaborating.

The writers aren't scientists.
Furthermore, the writers are non-scientists who based their version of vampires on ancient myths/legends/movies created by people who knew little to nothing about science and who didn't include it into the lore of vampires.

The myth is that vampires are vulnerable to sunlight.
The myth is NOT that:
-Vampires are vulnerable to certain radiation wavelengths
-Vampires are vulnerable to starlight.
-Vampires are vulnerable to moonlight.
-Vampires are vulnerable to certain strengths of sunlight
-Or anything else that attempts to dissect or analyze exactly why and how they are vulnerable to sunlight.

Yip.

The rules are the same way; they're not written with scientific dissection in mind.

Yea sort of. The rules are written to allow the reader's imagination to take off. That is the spirit of all Palladium's games and that is the spirit with which they write. That scientific dissection may not be foremost or even at all in the mind of the authors is not really a reason to forgo scientific dissection.

How many house rules, decisions, and thoughts have you had to come up with to fill up the gaps and/or fix what is broke because they did not have something in mind?

They're fiction based on Magic, and magic by definition defies scientific explanation.

They are fiction based on myth and myth is not magic.

Humans have used myth to explain some things that science can also explain. A creation myth talks about a giant stepping on the Earth to form a lake. Science talks about plate tectonics, drainage, rivers shifting, and so forth. Magic talks about an earth element digging. Who knows, maybe a giant really did step on the Earth to form an indentation that later filled up with water. The fact does not necessarily write or necessarily justify the myth. The myth provides an explanation for the fact. Myths vary wildly in accuracy and completeness.

It is not clear if a myth is explaining something magical or something scientfic - and in my mind there is nothing excluding a little bit of both. It does not matter if the writers are scientists are not. They are laying out the myth, they are not exposing the science and/or the magic underpinning the myth. If I am wrong please provide a precise reference. I read the book but that is a lot for me to read in English in one night and I very well may have missed it.

I took from it that it is left open and I would say that the differing views cannot be claimed conclusively to be more right or wrong than any other, just competing/different. I am open to the possibility that I am wrong but nothing indicates I am.

So I would suggest it is not only logical but also desirable to keep the myth that vampires are vulnerable to sunlight open to further clarification and exploration in order to determine if there is science, magic, or both underpinning the myth. If there is no science, fine, good even; I fail to see how it is more logical to jump straight away to that conclusion when there is no reason to believe that conclusion.

Never did I say I have the one and only correct answer. I cannot say that in fairness. No one from us can. That is my primary contention. If you think you have adequately refuted this contention then we can all go home some happier than others.

Because there can only be ONE correct answer.
We can't both be correct.

We can arrive at the same correct answer using different methods and both be correct.

x = y + z and let x = 6.

You say y = 7 and z = -1 and I say y = 5 and z = 1. Aren't we both equally correct?

You never believe anything that isn't conclusively proved by data?

I believe things sure. We all do. We have to.

Let's get off the 3rd grade recess yard, ok?

As I pointed out, you are the one who's been making personal attacks.
I've managed to debate without flaming people.

Not a flame. I have made no personal attacks either. Just a request to engage in a conversation and to answer the questions posed in a cooperative rational manner, which is something you ask of others. It is fair to ask of you, too.

"This is just not cooperative, childish, and reflects poorly on you. Go ahead and thumbs up, drive it home. "

"You need to hone your sense of the obvious"

"Do you see that I was reacting to your claim to "a little logic" and not your first post? Your ego and arrogance have blinded you?"

So far you've called me childish, unaware of the obvious, and blinded by arrogance.

Do you really think that these are a good way to go about engaging in an adult conversation?

I did not say you are childish. I said the behaviour was childish.

I did not say you are unaware of the obvious. I said that you misread the obviousness of my involvement in the discussion.

I did not say you are blinded by arrogance (or anything else for that matter). I asked if you were.

Yes. I have no problem with sarcasm, too.

[DocS]

Let me try to put it without quoting.

There is undeniably something special about Sunlight with regards to vampires. Moonlight doesn't hurt them. Nor does starlight. They may mention that some other stars may share the behavior, but that just means that it's not absolutely unique, but still could be something that is only behavior of 0.1% of stars.

But the canon never says what that *THING* is.

Is it distance? Ockham's razor points here, but Ockham's razor is simply a tool for hypotheses, not a rule of logic. If, however, it is distance, then Vampires on Jupiter are OK because the Sun is too far away. And vampires are vulnerable to all stars, provided they get close enough. An OK theory. Has some fun points to it.

Is it spectrum? Then the vampire on Jupiter fries... but the Vampire on the Redsunned world is OK. But then there would be non-magical sun-flashlights. Well, it's hard to argue from non-existence. But it certainly looks like pure spectrum doesn't do it. But maybe.

Is it intensity? Then intensify the moonlight and there you go. Likewise, take the vamp to Jupiter, and he's ok. Similar, but subtly different ramifications to 'distance'.

Is it worship? The stars referenced also all have sentient life on them, life which probably worshipped their nearest star. Then the star of inhabited worlds would work, but one without any worshippers wouldn't. An odd way to look at it, but again, consistent with what's been said.

Is it "The star of the homeland". The soil of the homeland is important, it makes sense the star would be too. Then the Vamp on Jupiter is fried, but if you put him in front of another identical star, no matter the distance he's fine.

Is it, that the sun is the center star of a solar system... a terribly silly rule because then a star with no planets/asteroids/etc, and thus no solar *system* has no effect on vampires. It seems consistant with neither vampiric lore (which doesn't make any difference between stars with or without orbiting bodies) nor astronomy (which again, makes little difference). But its consistent. Silly. Because it's also up there with "Only stars with *names* hurt vampires since only stars with names are mentioned". Of the theories, this one is not only not supported by Ockhams razor, it's also not supported by Robins Law of fun neither. As being proposed by the biggest supporter of 'logic' here, it's ironically the least logical.

It's much more fun to brainstorm what that *thing* could be, and the ramifications of it. Vampire astronauts everywhere want to know. If vamps actually existed, we could test it scientifically. And I assure you, every vampire hunter would learn what that 'it' is and how to make a lightbeam emit it at the flick of a switch.

The fact of the matter is, for any given vampire, only *ONE* star is mentioned that hurts it. And it is terribly hard to draw conclusions from an 'N' of one.

[DocS]

The writers aren't scientists.

But... whether something does or doesn't harm a Vampire... that's a scientific question. I am a scientist. I know a scientific question when I see one.

[cornholioprime]

Let me try to put it without quoting.

There is undeniably something special about Sunlight with regards to vampires. Moonlight doesn't hurt them. Nor does starlight. They may mention that some other stars may share the behavior, but that just means that it's not absolutely unique, but still could be something that is only behavior of 0.1% of stars.

But the canon never says what that *THING* is.

Is it distance? Ockham's razor points here, but Ockham's razor is simply a tool for hypotheses, not a rule of logic. If, however, it is distance, then Vampires on Jupiter are OK because the Sun is too far away. And vampires are vulnerable to all stars, provided they get close enough. An OK theory. Has some fun points to it.

Is it spectrum? Then the vampire on Jupiter fries... but the Vampire on the Redsunned world is OK. But then there would be non-magical sun-flashlights. Well, it's hard to argue from non-existence. But it certainly looks like pure spectrum doesn't do it. But maybe.

Is it intensity? Then intensify the moonlight and there you go. Likewise, take the vamp to Jupiter, and he's ok. Similar, but subtly different ramifications to 'distance'.

Is it worship? The stars referenced also all have sentient life on them, life which probably worshipped their nearest star. Then the star of inhabited worlds would work, but one without any worshippers wouldn't. An odd way to look at it, but again, consistent with what's been said.

Is it "The star of the homeland". The soil of the homeland is important, it makes sense the star would be too. Then the Vamp on Jupiter is fried, but if you put him in front of another identical star, no matter the distance he's fine.

Is it, that the sun is the center star of a solar system... a terribly silly rule because then a star with no planets/asteroids/etc, and thus no solar *system* has no effect on vampires. It seems consistant with neither vampiric lore (which doesn't make any difference between stars with or without orbiting bodies) nor astronomy (which again, makes little difference). But its consistent. Silly. Because it's also up there with "Only stars with *names* hurt vampires since only stars with names are mentioned". Of the theories, this one is not only not supported by Ockhams razor, it's also not supported by Robins Law of fun neither. As being proposed by the biggest supporter of 'logic' here, it's ironically the least logical.

It's much more fun to brainstorm what that *thing* could be, and the ramifications of it. Vampire astronauts everywhere want to know. If vamps actually existed, we could test it scientifically. And I assure you, every vampire hunter would learn what that 'it' is and how to make a lightbeam emit it at the flick of a switch.

The fact of the matter is, for any given vampire, only *ONE* star is mentioned that hurts it. And it is terribly hard to draw conclusions from an 'N' of one.

[Rant]
We interrupt this monologue to bring you a Special Bulletin.

I told you before in an earlier Post, Damon (maybe not you personally, but I did post it), that in VARIOUS Books in VARIOUS Palladium Dimensions across the Megaverse concerning VARIOUS types of Palladium Stars, that Vampires are vulnerable to the light of a Sun.

Not just OUR Sun, but ANY Sun.

Please, please, please, read the prior Posts.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled Thread.

[/Rant]

[Killer Cyborg]

The writers aren't scientists.

But... whether something does or doesn't harm a Vampire... that's a scientific question. I am a scientist. I know a scientific question when I see one.

Ever read From A Buick 8?

[Killer Cyborg]

Thank you Killer Cyborg for elaborating.

Somebody asked.

The rules are the same way; they're not written with scientific dissection in mind.

Yea sort of. The rules are written to allow the reader's imagination to take off. That is the spirit of all Palladium's games and that is the spirit with which they write. That scientific dissection may not be foremost or even at all in the mind of the authors is not really a reason to forgo scientific dissection.

If you're talking about spinning your own houserules, sure.
But what the authors wrote, intended, and believe are all relevant when discussing what the official rules are (or should be).

How many house rules, decisions, and thoughts have you had to come up with to fill up the gaps and/or fix what is broke because they did not have something in mind?

All of them.

They're fiction based on Magic, and magic by definition defies scientific explanation.

They are fiction based on myth and myth is not magic.

That depends on the myth.
In the case of Palladium's vampires, the myths are about magical beings.
So it nets out the same.

Because there can only be ONE correct answer.
We can't both be correct.

We can arrive at the same correct answer using different methods and both be correct.

x = y + z and let x = 6.

You say y = 7 and z = -1 and I say y = 5 and z = 1. Aren't we both equally correct?

That depends on what X, Y, and Z actually are.

You never believe anything that isn't conclusively proved by data?

I believe things sure. We all do. We have to.

So there you go.

I have made no personal attacks...

"This is just not cooperative, childish, and reflects poorly on you. Go ahead and thumbs up, drive it home. "

"You need to hone your sense of the obvious"

"Do you see that I was reacting to your claim to 'a little logic' and not your first post? Your ego and arrogance have blinded you?"

So far you've called me childish, unaware of the obvious, and blinded by arrogance.

Do you really think that these are a good way to go about engaging in an adult conversation?

I did not say you are childish. I said the behaviour was childish.

That's a cop-out.

I did not say you are unaware of the obvious. I said that you misread the obviousness of my involvement in the discussion.

So somehow I missed the obvious, but I'm not unaware of the obvious?

That's another cop-out.

I did not say you are blinded by arrogance (or anything else for that matter). I asked if you were.

Another cop-out.

Are you stupid or something?

[asajosh]

We interrupt this monologue to bring you a Special Bulletin.

I told you before in an earlier Post, Damon (maybe not you personally, but I did post it), that in VARIOUS Books in VARIOUS Palladium Dimensions across the Megaverse concerning VARIOUS types of Palladium Stars, that Vampires are vulnerable to the light of a Sun.

Not just OUR Sun, but ANY Sun.

Please, please, please, read the prior Posts.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled Thread.

Forget it Corn, I've learned that DamonS either cannot read or simply chooses not to. He seems to scan the topic of the first post, then siply spews out whatever psuedo-science he can to "justify" his self-serving interpretations. He has no interest in what other GMs think so long as they agree with his rants. Notice how no one EVER comes out and say's "Hey I played in a game DamonS ran and it was fun!" He only GM's solo games (as far as I can tell, as no one admits to playing with him).

This thread died several weeks ago (OMG Undead Thread! Get the Water! Or take your PC out in the sun!). What say we all take a breath and save the symantic argument (sun vs star debatefor example) for PMs?

[Natasha]

I did not say you are childish. I said the behaviour was childish.

That's a cop-out.

It's not a cop out.
One is personal, one is responding to a behaviour. Totally different things. I also said it was uncooperative. You think I think you are uncooperative?

So somehow I missed the obvious, but I'm not unaware of the obvious?

That's another cop-out.

It's not a cop out.
Just because someone misses something obvious that is no reason to say they are unaware of the obvious. If missing something obvious is chronic then there might be a case for saying someone is unaware of the obvious.

I did not say you are blinded by arrogance (or anything else for that matter). I asked if you were.

Another cop-out.

Are you stupid or something?

It's not a cop out.
Something.

[Killer Cyborg]

I did not say you are childish. I said the behaviour was childish.

That's a cop-out.

It's not a cop out.
One is personal, one is responding to a behaviour. Totally different things. I also said it was uncooperative. You think I think you are uncooperative?

People are defined by their behavior.

So somehow I missed the obvious, but I'm not unaware of the obvious?

That's another cop-out.

It's not a cop out.
Just because someone misses something obvious that is no reason to say they are unaware of the obvious. If missing something obvious is chronic then there might be a case for saying someone is unaware of the obvious.

Actually, if somebody "misses" something obvious, that means that they are unaware of it.
Hence, "unaware of the obvious".

I did not say you are blinded by arrogance (or anything else for that matter). I asked if you were.

Another cop-out.

Are you stupid or something?

It's not a cop out.
Something.

It's a cop-out.
Insult by implication is still insult.

[Natasha]

People are defined by their behavior.

Choice of behaviour is something entirely different however and fair in constructive criticism. Also a part of constructive criticism is keeping the scope to particular situations not generalised or abstract behaviour. Which is what I did, and explained.

So somehow I missed the obvious, but I'm not unaware of the obvious?

That's another cop-out.

It's not a cop out.
Just because someone misses something obvious that is no reason to say they are unaware of the obvious. If missing something obvious is chronic then there might be a case for saying someone is unaware of the obvious.

Actually, if somebody "misses" something obvious, that means that they are unaware of it.
Hence, "unaware of the obvious".

Once again in that specific situation, not chronically, generally, or abstractly. It was a single, specific situation. Which as I just explained is fine, so long as it is fair. Which it was.

I did not say you are blinded by arrogance (or anything else for that matter). I asked if you were.

Another cop-out.

Are you stupid or something?

It's not a cop out.
Something.

It's a cop-out.
Insult by implication is still insult.

True, if I was insulting, which I wasn't, so it isn't.




If you still think I was insulting you, then there a protocol for handling that...

[asajosh]

If you still think I was insulting you, then there a protocol for handling that...

Ya you two could take it to PMs, but I know it's not as much fun without an audiance.

[Killer Cyborg]

People are defined by their behavior.

Choice of behaviour is something entirely different however and fair in constructive criticism.

Not really.
If I were to say, "I don't think that YOU are stupid, just everything that you do and say", would that somehow not be insulting?
Is there really that much of a distinction between saying that, and in just calling the person stupid?
Not really.

Yes, a person can pick nits, and try to find subtle distinctions between the two, but it all boils down to the same thing.

Trying to pretend otherwise is just juvenile, an attempt to pretend that the motives and meanings of the statements are other than what they are.

So somehow I missed the obvious, but I'm not unaware of the obvious?

That's another cop-out.

It's not a cop out.
Just because someone misses something obvious that is no reason to say they are unaware of the obvious. If missing something obvious is chronic then there might be a case for saying someone is unaware of the obvious.

Actually, if somebody "misses" something obvious, that means that they are unaware of it.
Hence, "unaware of the obvious".

Once again in that specific situation, not chronically, generally, or abstractly. It was a single, specific situation. Which as I just explained is fine, so long as it is fair. Which it was.

Since I never claimed that you said I was "chronically unaware of the obvious", I'll take this as your admission that you did indeed call me "unaware of the obvious."

Insult by implication is still insult.

True, if I was insulting, which I wasn't, so it isn't.

Asking if somebody is blinded by arrogance is an implication that they actually are blinded by arrogance.
If you call somebody "blinded by arrogance", that constitutes an insult.
Therefore, implying somebody is "blinded by arrogance" is insult by implication.

If you still think I was insulting you, then there a protocol for handling that...

There are several protocols for handling it.
While I could report your posts, I don't really get my feelings hurt easily, and I tend to think that cheap insults reflect more on the one hurling them than at the target, so I rarely report this type of thing.

On the other hand, I dislike hypocrisy.
So when somebody tosses out childish insults, then accuses me of acting like I'm in preschool, I feel compelled to point out to that person how they're coming off.

[Natasha]

People are defined by their behavior.

Choice of behaviour is something entirely different however and fair in constructive criticism.

Not really.
If I were to say, "I don't think that YOU are stupid, just everything that you do and say", would that somehow not be insulting?
Is there really that much of a distinction between saying that, and in just calling the person stupid?
Not really.

Agreed. But I did not say that everything you do and say is uncooperative, childish, or reflects poorly on you. I said that specific behaviour was uncooperative, childish, and reflects poorly on you.

Yes, a person can pick nits, and try to find subtle distinctions between the two, but it all boils down to the same thing.

Trying to pretend otherwise is just juvenile, an attempt to pretend that the motives and meanings of the statements are other than what they are.

I told you straightly what my motives and meanings were. If you cannot accept that, that is one thing, but calling me a liar is totally another. Are you calling me a liar? Do you think you know me well enough to say that about me? Or are you speaking about a specific behaviour in a specific situation? That is of course a fair thing to do.

Since I never claimed that you said I was "chronically unaware of the obvious", I'll take this as your admission that you did indeed call me "unaware of the obvious."

Take it however you want, I cannot stop you from doing that, but I clearly explained in no uncertain terms the correct way to take it:

Just because someone misses something obvious that is no reason to say they are unaware of the obvious.

Asking if somebody is blinded by arrogance is an implication that they actually are blinded by arrogance.
If you call somebody "blinded by arrogance", that constitutes an insult.
Therefore, implying somebody is "blinded by arrogance" is insult by implication.

Asking someone a question is not implying anything except a desire to get an answer. That is why people ask questions. Not to imply but get information. Affirming the consequent does not work anyway.

There are several protocols for handling it.
While I could report your posts, I don't really get my feelings hurt easily, and I tend to think that cheap insults reflect more on the one hurling them than at the target, so I rarely report this type of thing.

Reporting is a bit draconian. You could ask me to apologise. But, alas, it is not the perceived insults that bother you. It is the perceived hypocrisy.

On the other hand, I dislike hypocrisy.
So when somebody tosses out childish insults, then accuses me of acting like I'm in preschool, I feel compelled to point out to that person how they're coming off.

Not being hypocritical. Not tossing out insults childish or otherwise. I never accused you of acting like you are in preschool. I pointed your choice to engage in childish behaviour, yes.

You never until now mentioned hypocrisy. Why did you not call me a hypocrite from the start? Are you calling me a hypocrite or are you responding to a specific behaviour? You do not know me at all, so do you really think you are in a position to make a judgment call about who am I, as a person? You can talk about my chosen behaviour, which is fair. There I go, nitpicking again.

So which is it? I am a liar and hypocrite, or I chose to act like a liar and chose to act like a hypocrite?

I am tired of this pointless round and round. Get to it.

[Killer Cyborg]

People are defined by their behavior.

Choice of behaviour is something entirely different however and fair in constructive criticism.

Not really.
If I were to say, "I don't think that YOU are stupid, just everything that you do and say", would that somehow not be insulting?
Is there really that much of a distinction between saying that, and in just calling the person stupid?
Not really.

Agreed. But I did not say that everything you do and say is uncooperative, childish, or reflects poorly on you. I said that specific behaviour was uncooperative, childish, and reflects poorly on you.

It doesn't have to be a global comment that permanently applies to the person in order to be an insult.
If I said, "You're pretty fat today", that would be an insult.
Regardless of the fact that I was just commenting on the moment, not saying that the person would always be fat, or that they were incapable of ever losing weight.
Same with "You're pretty stupid today".
That's an insult, even though it's not saying that the person is wandering around in a permanent state of stupidity.

Same with "You're being childish today."
Still an insult, even though it's not applicable to everything about the person.

Yes, a person can pick nits, and try to find subtle distinctions between the two, but it all boils down to the same thing.

Trying to pretend otherwise is just juvenile, an attempt to pretend that the motives and meanings of the statements are other than what they are.

I told you straightly what my motives and meanings were. If you cannot accept that, that is one thing, but calling me a liar is totally another. Are you calling me a liar? Do you think you know me well enough to say that about me? Or are you speaking about a specific behaviour in a specific situation? That is of course a fair thing to do.

I don't believe that I mentioned your name at all in that passage.

Since I never claimed that you said I was "chronically unaware of the obvious", I'll take this as your admission that you did indeed call me "unaware of the obvious."

Take it however you want, I cannot stop you from doing that, but I clearly explained in no uncertain terms the correct way to take it:

Just because someone misses something obvious that is no reason to say they are unaware of the obvious.

Yes, you said that.
Then I said, "Actually, if somebody 'misses' something obvious, that means that they are unaware of it.
Hence, 'unaware of the obvious'."

Then you said: "Once again in that specific situation, not chronically, generally, or abstractly."

Which is an admission that you were calling me "unaware of the obvious", if only in that specific situation.
Which is still calling me "unaware of the obvious".

As I point out above, a remark doesn't have to make claims about a person's entire lifespan or entire character in order to be an insult.

Asking if somebody is blinded by arrogance is an implication that they actually are blinded by arrogance.
If you call somebody "blinded by arrogance", that constitutes an insult.
Therefore, implying somebody is "blinded by arrogance" is insult by implication.

Asking someone a question is not implying anything except a desire to get an answer. That is why people ask questions. Not to imply but get information. Affirming the consequent does not work anyway.

You're either lying to me or to yourself.
Asking questions sure as heck can make implications about the person.
"Are you blinded by arrogance?" is NOT a question asked honestly, with innocent intent. It's a question that implies that you believe that the answer is "yes".

Like:
"Are you stupid?"
"Are you retarded?"
"Did your mother smoke a lot of crack when she was pregnant?"

All are questions that make insulting implications about the character of the person you are asking.

There are several protocols for handling it.
While I could report your posts, I don't really get my feelings hurt easily, and I tend to think that cheap insults reflect more on the one hurling them than at the target, so I rarely report this type of thing.

Reporting is a bit draconian. You could ask me to apologise. But, alas, it is not the perceived insults that bother you. It is the perceived hypocrisy.

Correct.

And I'm not looking for an apology there either, just admission.

On the other hand, I dislike hypocrisy.
So when somebody tosses out childish insults, then accuses me of acting like I'm in preschool, I feel compelled to point out to that person how they're coming off.

Not being hypocritical. Not tossing out insults childish or otherwise.

I never accused you of acting like you are in preschool. I pointed your choice to engage in childish behaviour, yes.

Actually, I believe it was kindergarten or something.
Which nets out the same.

You never until now mentioned hypocrisy. Why did you not call me a hypocrite from the start?

I let it slide at first, but then you again implied that I was the one being childish here.
So I figured that I'd point out that it isn't the case.

Are you calling me a hypocrite or are you responding to a specific behaviour?

Doesn't matter.
If somebody is hypocritical, then they're a hypocrite.
Just like they're a liar if they lie about something.

It's not the sum of their being, but it's certainly one true thing about them.

You do not know me at all, so do you really think you are in a position to make a judgment call about who am I, as a person? You can talk about my chosen behaviour, which is fair. There I go, nitpicking again.

Yes, you are.

So which is it? I am a liar and hypocrite, or I chose to act like a liar and chose to act like a hypocrite?

You can't act like a liar without actually lying, and if you actually lie about something, then you actually ARE a liar.
Ditto with hypocracy.

[Natasha]

I don't believe that I mentioned your name at all in that passage.

It was in response to something I said. And response to a quoted block with my name on it. If you are going to include oblique comments aimed at no one when concretely replying to someone, please announce as much. At least for my sake; I was unaware that you were talking to no one.

As I point out above, a remark doesn't have to make claims about a person's entire lifespan or entire character in order to be an insult.

On the other hand, it does not have to be an insult either.

And it wasn't.

You're either lying to me or to yourself.
Asking questions sure as heck can make implications about the person.
"Are you blinded by arrogance?" is NOT a question asked honestly, with innocent intent. It's a question that implies that you believe that the answer is "yes".

Emphasis mine. Like I said, I was not implying anything. I was asking a question.

And I was asking it honestly.

Why are you trying to tell me what I meant?

You may have felt insulted, but I was not insulting you.

Actually, I believe it was kindergarten or something.
Which nets out the same.

3rd grade recess yard.

And I said we. I was frustrated with the lack of focus, just like on a 3rd grade recess yard. I should not have said it that way though.

It's not the sum of their being, but it's certainly one true thing about them.

That is what I have been saying all along. One true thing is one specific behaviour. And reacting to one specific behaviour is fair, if it is not malicious. I was reacting to one specific behaviour and I was not being malicious. Therefore, I was being fair.

Hehe.

And I'm not looking for an apology there either, just admission.

I admit you think that I insulted you.
Are we done?

[Killer Cyborg]

As I point out above, a remark doesn't have to make claims about a person's entire lifespan or entire character in order to be an insult.

On the other hand, it does not have to be an insult either.

And it wasn't.

As I've shown, it was.

You're either lying to me or to yourself.
Asking questions sure as heck can make implications about the person.
"Are you blinded by arrogance?" is NOT a question asked honestly, with innocent intent. It's a question that implies that you believe that the answer is "yes".

Emphasis mine. Like I said, I was not implying anything. I was asking a question.

And I was asking it honestly.

I'm sure.

Why are you trying to tell me what I meant?

Yes, since you seem to be unaware of it somehow.

Actually, I believe it was kindergarten or something.
Which nets out the same.

3rd grade recess yard.

And I said we. I was frustrated with the lack of focus, just like on a 3rd grade recess yard. I should not have said it that way though.

Okay.

It's not the sum of their being, but it's certainly one true thing about them.

That is what I have been saying all along. One true thing is one specific behaviour. And reacting to one specific behaviour is fair, if it is not malicious. I was reacting to one specific behaviour and I was not being malicious. Therefore, I was being fair.

That's just stupid.

[lather]

As I point out above, a remark doesn't have to make claims about a person's entire lifespan or entire character in order to be an insult.

On the other hand, it does not have to be an insult either.

And it wasn't.

As I've shown, it was.

Did not.
Did to.
Did not.
Did to.
Did not.

Why are you trying to tell me what I meant?

Yes, since you seem to be unaware of it somehow.

I know what I meant. Unfortunate that you do not like it but oh well. Interesting that you accepted my explanation when I said I could have done something differently. But any other explanation you refuse and try to tell me what I meant. It is contradictory.

You have no right to tell me what I meant anyway.

Nope; once again, when I write the sentence, and then go on to explain how I'm using the terms, it makes no sense for other people to step in and "correct" me.

That's just stupid.

Maybe. But it is true. Constructive criticism allows criticism of specific behaviour. That is part of the point of constructive criticism. If I am wrong, please explain it to me.

[Killer Cyborg]

Why are you trying to tell me what I meant?

Yes, since you seem to be unaware of it somehow.

I know what I meant. Unfortunate that you do not like it but oh well. Interesting that you accepted my explanation when I said I could have done something differently. But any other explanation you refuse and try to tell me what I meant. It is contradictory.

You have no right to tell me what I meant anyway.

This is interesting for two reasons:
1. I was clearly talking to Natasha, yet you're responding as if I was talking to you, Lather.
Unless you're one person with two accounts or something, I don't know how you could get that confused.
2. You started this mess off by trying to tell me what I meant, but now you don't like it when the shoe's on the other foot?

That's just stupid.

Maybe. But it is true. Constructive criticism allows criticism of specific behaviour. That is part of the point of constructive criticism. If I am wrong, please explain it to me.

The point of constructive criticism is to let somebody know that you dislike something that they are doing, but doing it without insulting or belittling them.
Calling somebody (or their behavior) "childish" or "blinded by arrogance" is NOT constructive criticism.

[Natasha]

I am very sorry about that. I forgot to log him out before posting. That post was all me all the way.

You cannot tell me what I meant. You agree with that?

So when I tell you that I did not imply you are blinded by arrogance that means I did not imply you are blinded by arrogance nevermind what you think. So when I tell you that did not intend insult when I said 'childish' that means I did not intend insult when I said 'childish' nevermind what you think. You may have felt insulted but I was not insulting you.

Regarding constructive criticism that is exactly what I had been saying. I was operating on the fact that I was not accusing you of being blinded by arrogance and that I did not mean insult with the word 'childish'. I said that all along.

Is 'juvenile' the appropriate word? And, yes, I am asking because I really want to know because I really do not know. 'childish' is the only word I knew and no one ever pushed back when I used it before. You are the first to push back.