PDA

View Full Version : Erfworld 152 - tBfGK - 139



Pages : [1] 2

The Giant
2009-04-03, 11:34 PM
New Erfworld is up.

Justyn
2009-04-03, 11:36 PM
Yeah, Vinny is definitely my favorite character.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-04-03, 11:40 PM
Ha, I knew I was staying up for some reason!

I'd not have thought Vinnie was a teary kind of guy, but there you go - he's a sensitive man.

Hmm... we must be getting near the end of Book 1. This would be a nice page to end on, but I feel like we're due a Charlie Scene... perhaps with some nice Ominous Foreshadowing (tm)

EDIT:
And Caeser with some nice badass dialogue in Panel 1... though I've always been more partial to "jaunty" rather than "peppy" :smalltongue:

tomaO2
2009-04-03, 11:41 PM
Man, the updates are coming hot and heavy. I can't recall the last time weve gotten this many in such a short time. Is this going to continue until the end of the chapter? Maybe the updates have sped up because we are on the home stretch?

Sad moment. It does look like it's night right now but I don't get how that works then. They clearly said no magic outside your turn unless you are under attack.

Also, confirmation that the vamps drink blood. I wonder what kind (if any) bonuses they get for doing so. Obviously, they don't NEED to drink because their food pops just like everyone elses does. Maybe it makes new vamp units out of the victims?

I wonder what the next move is. I see three choices.

1. Take over Jillian's cities.

2. Go straight to GK.

3. Look for Stanley.

They can't conquer both GK and FAQ at the same time because only an overlord or Chief Warlord can do so. If they leave FAQ though, Stanley can double back on them and take FAQ for himself. On the other hand, if they go directly to GK, they may be able to claim the city because it was destroyed.

I think option one is the prudent choice. Send a few bats to scout out GK but that's it. They have no way of knowing how damaged GK is or if there are any enemy units left. What they DO know is that there are FAQ cities that are still ripe for the picking. So they should get that.

Option two seems a non starter as they don't seem to think they can find Stanley while he's veiled.

Also, cool swords, reminds me of Parson's blade. Why the heck didn't they use them when fighting Stanley? Maybe Vampire Mario would still be alive today.

I miss Vamp Mario. :smallfrown:

Not Ansom though. :smalltongue:

chefsotero
2009-04-03, 11:45 PM
Nicelly Done

But I wouldn't mind to see Ceasar drinking some vitae. And an Undead Jillian meating Lady Wanda would be fun. (well assuming TV embraces their units)

Justyn
2009-04-03, 11:48 PM
Man, the updates are coming hot and heavy.

Sad moment. It does look like it's night right now but I don't get how that works then. They clearly said no magic outside your turn unless you are under attack.

Thinkagrams might be the exception to the rule. Or it just might be magic used for offensive purposes that can only be used on your turn.

Ascension
2009-04-03, 11:49 PM
Vinny x Vampire!Jillian OTP? :smallamused:

I kid, I kid. Sweet scene, though.

Lamech
2009-04-03, 11:50 PM
Perhaps the thinkamancer's have some sort of perma-spell between them? Anyway *sadface*.

BarGamer
2009-04-03, 11:51 PM
GO VINNY! Great update here.

I mean, I wouldn't object to the two of them hooking up on the mutual rebound, except for the possibility that Vinny's teary red eyes might wake up with a fork in them, just because.

MuthSera
2009-04-03, 11:53 PM
I cried when I saw vinny cry.
D:

Oracle_Hunter
2009-04-03, 11:54 PM
Thinkamancy has to work on other people's turn, or the Eyemancer Table (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0026.html) wouldn't function at all.

Glome
2009-04-03, 11:58 PM
Ha, I knew I was staying up for some reason!

I'd not have thought Vinnie was a teary kind of guy, but there you go - he's a sensitive man.

Hmm... we must be getting near the end of Book 1. This would be a nice page to end on, but I feel like we're due a Charlie Scene... perhaps with some nice Ominous Foreshadowing (tm)

EDIT:
And Caeser with some nice badass dialogue in Panel 1... though I've always been more partial to "jaunty" rather than "peppy" :smalltongue:

You mean like was used here?
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0132.html

And we already know what happened to Charlie, he got pwned. I'd much rather know what happens to Stanley, and the fate of Parson and the trimancers.

Triforceelf
2009-04-04, 12:00 AM
Wow, the series is doing great! I really like the direction you have taken it, especially with fleshing out the charecters.

Lunaya
2009-04-04, 12:44 AM
...Why, in the name of everything holy, did it take me so long to start reading Erfworld?

I want to give Vinny a hug. :smallfrown:

Scylfing
2009-04-04, 12:51 AM
Yeah, Vinny is definitely my favorite character.

+1.

Even if a lot of the good stuff that came out of the Jillian/Transylvito vs. Stanley segments have kind of been undermined by the way things were resolved at Gobwin Knob, Vinny is still the man.

slurpz
2009-04-04, 12:52 AM
Panel 10 was surprisingly emotional. Well done.

TamLin
2009-04-04, 12:53 AM
Well I guess that finally resolves the issue of whether Transylvitans are actually vampires. And thank God Vinny is back in the comic again. Funny, way back when I assumed that Vinny would be the one dying in battle to protect Ansom's back. Of course, not a one of my predictions ever panned out (except Bogroll dying, but freaking Odin could have seen that one coming with one eye closed).

tomaO2
2009-04-04, 12:57 AM
Thinkagrams might be the exception to the rule. Or it just might be magic used for offensive purposes that can only be used on your turn.

Maybe, it's hard to know.Thinkmancy has been used all over the place but it seems to follow the rule or did, until this update. No thinkagrams were sent unless they were under attack or it was their turn (remember, having your city being attacked counts even if you are not personally attacked). The only exception was talking on the Eyebook system but that seems to have been some sort of persistant effect thing. Thus, the exception to the rule.


Thinkamancy has to work on other people's turn, or the Eyemancer Table (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0026.html) wouldn't function at all.

Not so. The author clearly stated that persistent effects continue even when it's not your turn. Examples would be flying and the contract was allowed to be created for Ansom to sign. I see a gigantic, holographic board to be the same thing. It's just there and it stays until the mancers shut down.

Marller
2009-04-04, 01:05 AM
Oh yeah Caesar is Chief Warlord, not Chief Counselor.
Good to see that Jillian is not the only one bad at dealing with situations. :smallfrown:

Timberboar
2009-04-04, 01:19 AM
Bah, there you go humanizing the walking sacks of XP again.

/kicks a rock

Edit: Good strip, but I think I'm more interested in the Tool's reaction when he hears about all this.

Then again, I _am_ a heartless monster.

sabremeister
2009-04-04, 01:20 AM
Thinkamancy working/not working out of turn. Who says the turn has ended for the RCC? It's nightfall, not necessarily night, and not necessarily end of turn.

ClamLeague9000
2009-04-04, 01:23 AM
Welp, looks like Vinny and Jillian are going to have sad grief sex.

Occasional Sage
2009-04-04, 01:23 AM
Also, confirmation that the vamps drink blood. I wonder what kind (if any) bonuses they get for doing so. Obviously, they don't NEED to drink because their food pops just like everyone elses does. Maybe it makes new vamp units out of the victims?




Not even going think about it being used as an ominous turn of phrase? There's nothing other than logic (not always the best way to anticipate Rob and Jamie!) to mark that as a literal threat.

Kholdstare
2009-04-04, 01:27 AM
Well I'm not gonna go the way of discussing game mechanics but more about the strip.

This is a rare moment that really makes you suspend belief on who is good or who is bad. Everyone is connected to someone and it is all about perspective. Ansom was a bit of a bastard but I sympathized for the guy and liked him in an odd sort of way. If he was introduced first then he would be the hero but a strange one. A white knight but not really one at the same time.

tl;dr this strip makes me appreciate the story-telling on this comic to new levels.

Kreistor
2009-04-04, 01:27 AM
A few questions answered.

First, it is now clear that Caesar blocked the attack, not Vinnie.

Second, Caesar is an inconsiderate bastard. He expects a highly volatile, extremely emotional person to bottle it all up, just because he's got overwhelming firepower. It's not possible, and yet he pushes her buttons anyway, aggravating the situation.

Third, Jillian actually believed him.

The second nails a couple of my theories about Caesar's intentions. I'll back those that think he was going to kill Jillian later, now. Extremely possible. Won't say it's the most likely possibility, but distinctly possible and perhaps a very close second if not first. Now that Ansom is gone, and the Jetstone military no longer in the vicinity, there's no one else to challenge Transylvito for Faq. With or without Jillian, Transylvito is up three cities, assuming Jillian wasn't lying about them. She's expendable, and with no Ansom to please, she's dinner.

That Jillian actually believed him, and attacked overrwhhelming strength regardless, backs a suicide attempt. The defenseless back-blade grip, covert attack, and angered grief all put this attack in the, "Send me to Ansom" school of thought.

I suspect we're done with Jillian now. There's no real story for her now, until she rejoins with Wanda, Jack, or Stanley. And like Vinnie said, she can look for Jack in the Magic Kingdom (well, she can get a caster to do it for her) ina few turns when Stanley runs out of upkeep for him. She won't assume Wanda is alive. And she won't find Stanley because of Jack. There's just nothing more to do tonight. She knows all she needs to, and she's grieving and going to live. Caesar might change his mind and let her go, in which case we might see her heading to GK to check the damage, but I don't know about that. She blew her purse recently. She doesn't have much to upkeep, but she doesn't have a war to work for. She's going to have to find cash, and so she'll have to continue working for Transylvito for the moment. She's still in alliance with them, and Caesar didn't break that himself. She just might not be able to afford to fly to GK unemployed. I'm thinking that showing us the volcano is someone else's epilogue...

Stanley and Jack. I'll bet they're up next, and we'll get to see the smoldering volcano. I can't imagine Stanley not wanting to see something as damaging and destructive as that. He'll know GK was destroyed, if he's a barbarian due to his capital falling, and he's further east than the TV's, so has a better chance of seeing the smoke in the AM. He had enough cash to start a new city on an old one, and he lost a bunch of units, so he may have a lot more for getting a city started than others may think. We do need a follow-up on Stanley, he's been out of it for longer than any other major character, so he should be next.

The trio are in the Magic Kingdom. What can they tell us, except to establish which of them lives, dies, or goes mad? Do they go barbarian and unemployed, since upkeep for them came from the defunct GK, or will Stanley know they are alive because he has to pay their upkeep since they were still on his side? That would force disbanding, or some method of getting them to him... requiring a portal.

Some people are expecting a Charlie shot. Charlie is, like Charlie from Charlie's Angels, ephemeral. (There's a reason that first image of the archons is straight out of that old show. We haven't seen Charlie's face yet.) I doubt we'll ever see Charlie. We might see his text of what Archons hear of him sending orders, just to establish some things, like that he's searching for Parson, shifting Archons to other conflicts, or whatever, but I doubt we'll see the Charlie. He'll be like V's gender: something to keep us guessing. One establishment comic. That's all I bet we'll see.

And that leaves Parson. So many options. Here's the opportunity for him to "become" Charlie by moving backward through time. Or he jumps to Stanley's future when he's prepared to move on the world again (letting us skip the boring rebuilding stage). Or he lands in the Magic Kingdom. Or he goes home to be summoned later... or some other Earthling gets summoned later. He may jump into a completely different game. So many options. He will be last. Or first in the new book.

jmsl
2009-04-04, 01:31 AM
So it was Caesar's hand that caught her arm. Although his grip appears different.

And +++++Vinny for his all too human reaction! I want to hug him now too.
It's good to see someone grieving from one of the thousands of deaths that have taken place.

Fez
2009-04-04, 01:31 AM
I'm just shocked how quick these are coming now. I'm getting spoiled. Spoil me some more. :)

And yeah, Vinnie was basically there helping his friend Ansom. When you consider the token force TV sent, Vinnie and a few bats, it must have just been a personal favor.

Nice characterization page overall. It does also confirm that the TV forces are pretty confident at this point. They didn't send much to the RCC. They didn't lose much to Stanley. They have some undefended cities they are ready to capture. Ala gaming, they are in the next position to be called 'scourge'.

Natio
2009-04-04, 01:36 AM
Does anyone else find Caesar's behaviour to be rather rude and arrogant?

He certainly reminds me of Spike from Buffy, cept less amusing.

Edit: Funny how many posts are made in the 5-10 seconds it took to post this.

ClamLeague9000
2009-04-04, 01:46 AM
Does anyone else find Caesar's behaviour to be rather rude and arrogant?

Not really. All he did was relay some news on a conflict essentially foreign to himself, and she suddenly attacks him for seemingly no reason. It's not like he's familiar with her personal history. She should be appreciative that he and the other TV warlords didn't strike her down right away and that Ceaser was forgiving enough to let it go so easilly. Hell, a dismissive responce had to be way more than Vinny was really hoping for. Attempting to assassinate someone isn't exactly good etiquette.

Kreistor
2009-04-04, 01:48 AM
Does anyone else find Caesar's behaviour to be rather rude and arrogant?

Clearly. Guess Ansom and Stanley aren't the only Rulers or Chief Warlords with that trait.


He certainly reminds me of Spike from Buffy, cept less amusing.

And competent. He actually stops the blonde vampire slayer, and we know Jillian is no slouch.


Edit: Funny how many posts are made in the 5-10 seconds it took to post this.

Server's are wonky. People get queued up wwaiting for the server to accept their post transmission, and wham, a bunch hit simultaneously.

slayerx
2009-04-04, 01:55 AM
Also, cool swords, reminds me of Parson's blade. Why the heck didn't they use them when fighting Stanley? Maybe Vampire Mario would still be alive today.

I miss Vamp Mario. :smallfrown:


Considering the little song routine (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0123.html) they were doing, they may have been dance fighting... as such that might limit the kind of stuff they fight with, such as using the switchblades/butterfly knives
The swords are more for regular fighting... but since it was dance fighting, the bonuses would make up for not using the glowing swords

Neuromancer
2009-04-04, 02:00 AM
Caesar's been rude and arrogant to Jillian from the moment they met. ("Chickie?") It probably is related to being a commander who can beat up most anyone (except an Overlord attuned to an Arkentool, obviously).

He's kinda a scary guy, really--he's tougher than Jillian, and he's the only person who's ever caught Vinny out yet (when he called Vinny on the carpet for not mentioning that Stanley might have a Foolamancer). Not a nice guy, but obviously very good at what he does. I wouldn't be surprised if he takes a more central role in the story going forward, especially if the Transylvito takeover of Faq storyline becomes a major plot line.

HamsterOfTheGod
2009-04-04, 02:19 AM
This would be a nice page to end on, but I feel like we're due a Charlie Scene...

No we need Stanley's reaction shot...

You Maniacs! You blew it up! Ah, damn you! God damn you all to hell!

or how about...

My Capitol! My beautiful Capitol! Vanished!

TamLin
2009-04-04, 02:21 AM
I suppose I can see things from Caesar's point of view: After all, there's a war going on and he doesn't have time to handle people with kid gloves. Of course, his generally dickish attitude and his underhanded interest in Faq leads us to cast him in a negative light.

Glome
2009-04-04, 02:28 AM
No we need Stanley's reaction shot...

You Maniacs! You blew it up! Ah, damn you! God damn you all to hell!

or how about...

My Capitol! My beautiful Capitol! Vanished!

Actually, considering that Stanley expected his capital to fall, (otherwise he wouldn't have fled), his reaction might be more tempered. It might be more of along the lines "Wow, I'm glad I got out when I can. Wait, did that volcano just completely destroy Ansom's army? Yes! The titans have lead me to victory once again."

datalaughing
2009-04-04, 02:30 AM
I wonder what kind of reaction Stanley will have. When he wakes up in the morning and finds that he's a barbarian, he may not even go back to GK. I mean, he probably thinks it's in enemy hands. Going back would be stupid. Then again, the city being destroyed but not claimed by someone else might mean that he still owns it and as such isn't a barbarian. But let's say he does become a barbarian. Does he go, "Well, they lasted longer than I thought they would." Or does he go, "Those idiots lost my city to the enemy! Incompetent morons!" etc. etc.? I think the latter is probably more Stanley-ish.

Noemz
2009-04-04, 02:33 AM
When Transylvito's turn kicks off next, will Jillian sneak off to Faq?

With Vinnie? ;) Maybe they can start a new side together, rebuild, then go after Stanley.

Tola
2009-04-04, 03:26 AM
I wonder what kind of reaction Stanley will have. When he wakes up in the morning and finds that he's a barbarian, he may not even go back to GK. I mean, he probably thinks it's in enemy hands. Going back would be stupid. Then again, the city being destroyed but not claimed by someone else might mean that he still owns it and as such isn't a barbarian. But let's say he does become a barbarian. Does he go, "Well, they lasted longer than I thought they would." Or does he go, "Those idiots lost my city to the enemy! Incompetent morons!" etc. etc.? I think the latter is probably more Stanley-ish.

I'm expecting him just looking at it for several panels, then:

"...

...

...Well, God-damm."

Because really, the sheer scale of what's happened here defies belief for the people here. The capital's in smoke: Bad. the entire enemy force is GONE: Good. The volcano's now active again: WTF.

Would anyone have thought of blowing up the volcano to nuke the siege?

"Act of Titan, maybe?"

Samargh
2009-04-04, 03:49 AM
I've no idea why, but my first reaction when I saw this strip was "Vinnie is a Captain Jack...!"

is that too adult for this strip???

must say, however that I have very much enjoyed the last few strips, it has tied everything together very nicely for me. SAtill a few to go, we know Stanley is free and clear but we need his take on it, and we need to know the ultimate fate of at least the trimancer, if not Parson.

He skipped the first few episodes of this comic, he can skip from now until his dramatic re-appearance in the next one.

I don't think Jillian is a spent character... we have to have the obvious misunderstanding of her meeting with Wanda (who will by then be carrying the arkenpliers she has become attuned to) and get mistakenly blamed for killing Ansom as a result.

I'm also wondering if Wanda isn't getting the hots for Parson... yes, she is a dominatrix and control freak, but the ultimate ruthless dominator at present is Lord Hamster... maybe she's about to go sub for him?

maybe I've had too much to drink... :smallredface:

Xeticus
2009-04-04, 04:14 AM
I think we're going to see more of Jillian. She has to avenge her love and she really will want to find out why Wanda is on Stanley's side and how she could have helped kill Ansom.

Caesar is probably going to be more of a major player. He's probably the strongest warlord left on what's left of the coalition.

And Stanley despite what Parson accomplished will still be angry. He's always angry!! He'll probably cool down when finds out that Ansom is dead and most of the coalition with him.

I'm getting spoiled by all these updates i'm loving this!! Can't wait to see what happens next.

Oslecamo
2009-04-04, 04:40 AM
And Stanley despite what Parson accomplished will still be angry. He's always angry!!


That's no true! He spends a good deal of time in self-delusional illusions of grandeur.

Anyway, Vinnie finally reveals a soft side. Who would guess vampires can cry too?

hajo
2009-04-04, 04:45 AM
she can look for Jack in the Magic Kingdom (well, she can get a caster to do it for her) in a few turns when Stanley runs out of upkeep for him.

"Running out of funds" assumes that GK is captured, but nobody is going to do that. So, I guess GK kinda 'survives' with the treasurey intact.

That means Stanley can keep Jack and his dwagons for long enough to make any search or waiting out infeasable.

fractal
2009-04-04, 04:54 AM
"Running out of funds" assumes that GK is captured, but nobody is going to do that. So, I guess GK kinda 'survives' with the treasurey intact.

That means Stanley can keep Jack and his dwagons for long enough to make any search or waiting out infeasable.
There won't be any search, unless Jillian does it personally. Those initial theories of Vinnie's were before it became clear that the Coalition is defunct. Gobwin Knob is gone (at least until it cools), the Coalition armies have been decimated, and Stanley and his six remaining dwagons are way way down everyone's priority list (except for Jillian's).

Tola
2009-04-04, 04:56 AM
We have no idea how much is in that treasury. Worse yet, with Gobwin Knob reduced to Level 1, the money provided by that city has gone down sharply. What happens when a kingdom goes into debt?

hajo
2009-04-04, 04:59 AM
When Transylvito's turn kicks off next, will Jillian sneak off to Faq?

With Vinnie? ;) Maybe they can start a new side together, rebuild, then go after Stanley.
Rebuilding a city is likely expensive, and Jillian was down to her last schmuckers.
And without defense, TV would find and conquer Faq shortly.
So, there is not much point going there - checking GK makes more sense.

And I don't think Vinnie would risk his position in TV's forces just for such a bit of fun...

Lamech
2009-04-04, 05:35 AM
I doubt Stanley will be ticked. More like
"the Titan's have banished my foes! Oooo... and arkentool. And gems. And a plausible method of vieling."

Also translovito has probably re-allied at this point in the story with another side.

kreszantas
2009-04-04, 05:38 AM
Without Jillian being put back into some sort of sanity, Cesar is not going to have this alliance continue, which means Jillian will be back to just her and her peeps. Vinny HAD to do this from all the other converstations he had previously with Ansom, otherwise that would be a pretty bad character flaw.

For some reason I can not get Accept's Balls to the Walls out of my head where they say they make ya drink your blood and tear your soul to pieces and the nutcracker sound depicting Jillians hand/knuckles in Cesar's grasp.

Also proves that Translyvito was never really involved with the whole RCC just Vinny until the turn order gambit that Ansom setup... now it really is blowing up in Jetstones, Jillian's and Vinny's face.

Stanley would have an evilgasm if knew what was going on.

DragoonKain
2009-04-04, 06:11 AM
On the issue of magic, I'm thinking anyone can cast at night, since it's no one's turn at night.

HandofShadows
2009-04-04, 06:39 AM
I think this proves that Vinnie is a stand up guy and I hope nothing bad happens to him. Anyone else notice that the TV's weapons glow read just as those of Wanda's Uncroaked? Would Wanda be abel to do soemthing to them if they get to close to her? The TV cahracters are powerful, Jillian is major nasty and Caeser took her down easily as vampires are super strong. Also they drink blood. Now if they follow through with the vamp bit, it will mean that they have a weakness, namely about getting a wood shoved into their chests. I wonder if the people of Erf know about that. Parson certainly will. Are the forces of TV about to their tail kicked?

Caeser has proven himself to be a nasty piece of work and I would not mind seeing him get staked. He lies to Jillian, treats her poorly and clearly would like to have her for lunch. The only two things are keeping her alive right now Vinnie and the location of Faq. And I don't think Vinnie will be able to save her in the end.

Think the next page will pick up with Stanely finding a erupting Gobwin knob (followed by an erupting Stanely) and THEN back to Pason and company.

Founding member of the "She's Dead Jim" Club.

Glome
2009-04-04, 06:59 AM
I think this proves that Vinnie is a stand up guy and I hope nothing bad happens to him. Anyone else notice that the TV's weapons glow read just as those of Wanda's Uncroaked? Would Wanda be abel to do soemthing to them if they get to close to her? The TV cahracters are powerful, Jillian is major nasty and Caeser took her down easily as vampires are super strong. Also they drink blood. Now if they follow through with the vamp bit, it will mean that they have a weakness, namely about getting a wood shoved into their chests. I wonder if the people of Erf know about that. Parson certainly will. Are the forces of TV about to their tail kicked?


That's assuming that 'Our Vampires are different' isn't in play, which I'm pretty sure it is.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OurVampiresAreDifferent

Getting wood shoved in your chest is deadly to most creatures, not just vampires. It is noted as a vulnerability just because regular vampires are normally pretty invulnerable. Yet that doesn't appear to be true here, they did lose three vampires in the conflict with Stanley after all.

Anyway, I'm hoping we see a lot more of TV in the next chapter of Erfworld as well, they are an interesting tribe and apparently the most powerful force left in the region after that volcano went off.

Kreistor
2009-04-04, 07:07 AM
"Running out of funds" assumes that GK is captured, but nobody is going to do that. So, I guess GK kinda 'survives' with the treasurey intact.

GK survives? We see half of it vaporizing, with no indication taht will stop. There is a top on the mountain, but all of GK, including the treasury, may be dust. We know (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0006.html) treasuries are physical objects that can be captured.


That means Stanley can keep Jack and his dwagons for long enough to make any search or waiting out infeasable.

We can see (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0148.html) that GK was not actually mined out, as Sizemore said it was. With the portoin o themountain mined out exploded into dust, the deeper gemstones may now be revealed, allowing a new city to start on the same spot... once it has cooled down enough.

the_tick_rules
2009-04-04, 07:41 AM
Now we get some hot, hot, comfort sex.

Architect
2009-04-04, 08:01 AM
GK survives? We see half of it vaporizing, with no indication taht will stop. There is a top on the mountain, but all of GK, including the treasury, may be dust. We know (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0006.html) treasuries are physical objects that can be captured.
I agree. I think that the treasury was destroyed along with the dungeon.

We can see (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0148.html) that GK was not actually mined out, as Sizemore said it was. With the portoin o themountain mined out exploded into dust, the deeper gemstones may now be revealed, allowing a new city to start on the same spot... once it has cooled down enough.
Bad guys get coolness points for building bases on/in active volcanoes. :smallcool: Besides, the full magma chamber indicated that it was still being fed and therefore capable of sustaining a lengthy period of activity.

Zael Zuran
2009-04-04, 08:30 AM
Actually, considering that Stanley expected his capital to fall, (otherwise he wouldn't have fled), his reaction might be more tempered. It might be more of along the lines "Wow, I'm glad I got out when I can. Wait, did that volcano just completely destroy Ansom's army? Yes! The titans have lead me to victory once again."

Good point. Especially relating to Stanley becoming more convinced he is truly the Tool of the Titans.

JenBurdoo
2009-04-04, 08:37 AM
I never imagined that a story with such cutesy illustrations could be so ... tender. Bravo to the authors! They have succeeded in making me feel awe, joy and even sadness over the fate of their characters.

brob
2009-04-04, 08:59 AM
Did Parson do a bad thing? TV's sounding pretty dark right about now. At the height of the RCC the participants all sounded like reasonable people, but perhaps that was partly Ansom's influence.

Suddenly makes me wonder about the "lives" of erflings, and if Parson just did a bad by blowing up one of the relatively good parts of it.

Zeku
2009-04-04, 09:08 AM
You called it: Captain Jack.

That's fine, it's always the eunuchs and the 'guys like Vinnie' who tend to be the best second-in-commands. They have all the competence and charisma of the leader, but different chemicals spinning around in their blood. They usually 'like' them enough to follow orders zealously, too.

Note that it's not his willingness to express emotion that makes it obvious, but how keen he is on sharing it with someone.

Emmerson Grant
2009-04-04, 09:15 AM
I wondered which kind of Vinnie Vinnie was. That reminded me of a Doogie Howser episode where Vinny is doing jury duty.

He's Vinnie Delpino all right.

Kreistor
2009-04-04, 09:37 AM
Bad guys get coolness points for building bases on/in active volcanoes. :smallcool: Besides, the full magma chamber indicated that it was still being fed and therefore capable of sustaining a lengthy period of activity.

Well, that depends on the spell. If they drew up magma and provided the pressure below it, then there's nothing to sustain the event. Mt. St. Helens, for instance, exploded and subsided in a single day. There was an aftermath of hanging ash, bt it was over.

See, that explosion happened because over months, the magma pushed up and was held down by very old rock. That built up pressure. Water htting the magma became steam, which slipped through the cracks, condensing hot in the rock, and helping weaken it, but increasing the pressure. Finally, the rock cap couldn't hold it back, and broke apart, becoming a massive rock slide (largest in history). The cap rolled away, the steam welled up, shattering the remainder, and the magma's pressure was released into the rock, turning it into hot, steamed dust. But that energy release removed the pressure, so the magma, after initially pushing up, no longer had pressure holding it up, so it slipped back deep almost immediately. The eruption was over, save for some hold out pockets that dissipated that day.

The pressure on GK was artifically created. Wanda awakened the lava, and it welled up. That effect is over. The magma should slip back down without the geological pressure holding it up, just like Mt. St. H. GK may be hot, but the worst effects are over. A couple of days should see it cooled enough to start a city again. Only if that spell created a permanent pressure under the magma in the crust (magma far below the images) would the eruption continue. That takes a lot more power and is entirely unnecessary to achieve the effect they were looking for.

Varthonai
2009-04-04, 09:56 AM
Not even going think about it being used as an ominous turn of phrase? There's nothing other than logic (not always the best way to anticipate Rob and Jamie!) to mark that as a literal threat.

Whether that's true or not, this is still the first we've ever heard of blood even EXISTING in Erfworld. We've certainly never seen any before; even when badly-wounded Dwagons have exposed ribs visible when viewed from below we only see the muscle and bone tissue. No blood.

I'm surprised no one else has commented on this; bloodless carnage was one of the defining characteristics of Erfworld, going with the whole "for kids" theme. I'd think that the TVs would have to first CREATE blood in their victims in order to drink it!

BarGamer
2009-04-04, 11:30 AM
So it was Caesar's hand that caught her arm. Although his grip appears different.

It's a disarming move. Basically you twist your wrist until their wrist either lets go of the knife, breaks, or one after the other. Panel 3 is Jillian's "I can't hold on to the knife anymore because of the pain!" face.

(I'm not sure how he pulled off holding her wrist to holding her hand in that disarming move, but I'll just figure he's got really long and strong fingers.)

dr pepper
2009-04-04, 12:05 PM
Well I guess that finally resolves the issue of whether Transylvitans are actually vampires.

Disagree. I still think that's just part of their theme. Their customs include drinking the blood of slain enemies, but there's nothing supernatural about it.

Interesting to see Vinne mourning though.

hajo
2009-04-04, 12:06 PM
GK survives? We see half of it vaporizing, with no indication taht will stop. There is a top on the mountain, but all of GK, including the treasury, may be dust. We know (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0006.html) treasuries are physical objects that can be captured.
No, we haven't seen any physical treasury yet. In that strip, Stanley is just approving the expenditure for buying the mega-spell.

As Erf is operating like a wargame, all the treasuries of all sides are likely just accounts in the "bank", and funds are transfered directly between them.
As long as a side is not conquered (by someone claiming their last city), the funds just stay there. And GK is destroyed, but not claimed by anybody yet.


We can see (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0148.html) that GK was not actually mined out, as Sizemore said it was.
That might be - but nobody knows about that yet, except for the casters and us readers.

Killer Angel
2009-04-04, 01:04 PM
Well, Vinnie has always been my favourite character in the (ex) coalition! :smallbiggrin:
And I also think it's one of the most brilliant tactical mind we've seen (always in the ex-coalition).
A great strip.

T-O-E
2009-04-04, 01:12 PM
Really hope we get to see Stanley or Charlie's reaction to the volcano before this chapter ends. Also, Parson. And the trimancer.

aka Argent
2009-04-04, 01:32 PM
Hmmmm...

Someone remind me, is FAQ up for grabs or is that one of the unknowns? We know Jillian doesn't know what happened, just woke up a Barbarian one morning, but did Stanley take it over or did he just take it down?

Architect
2009-04-04, 01:55 PM
Well, that depends on the spell. If they drew up magma and provided the pressure below it, then there's nothing to sustain the event. Mt. St. Helens, for instance, exploded and subsided in a single day. There was an aftermath of hanging ash, bt it was over.
Erfworld #148 (page 135) showed a full magma chamber. That means that there was still sufficient pressure to feed it, but insufficient pressure to to overcome the blockage.

slayerx
2009-04-04, 02:02 PM
Hmmmm...

Someone remind me, is FAQ up for grabs or is that one of the unknowns? We know Jillian doesn't know what happened, just woke up a Barbarian one morning, but did Stanley take it over or did he just take it down?

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0092.html
They know that Stanely has not rebuilt the cities so they remain in ruins... unless some unknown party has rebuilt the cities the ruins are completely up for grabs

Borris
2009-04-04, 02:43 PM
Am I the only one interpreting the current strip's events as the reveleation of the secret crush for Ansom Vinnie had been hiding all this timem unable to express his true feelings out of respect for the leader of the coalition?

raphfrk
2009-04-04, 02:45 PM
I doubt Stanley will be ticked. More like
"the Titan's have banished my foes! Oooo... and arkentool. And gems. And a plausible method of vieling."

That's a good point, he can make it look like the volcano is still spewing lava, even after it cools.

OTOH, it was hot enough when it was set off to ignite the Archons by radiation heating alone. It would probably take at least a few turns to cool down so Stanley can land.

I wonder if he could maintain his claim by staying on the Dwagons for a few days while in the airspace zone.

Hatu
2009-04-04, 03:00 PM
Good old Vinny. Here's hoping he never winds up on the wrong side of the plot.

I still don't get why Jillian suddenly flipped out, though.

-H

Golem
2009-04-04, 03:11 PM
Good old Vinny. Here's hoping he never winds up on the wrong side of the plot.

I still don't get why Jillian suddenly flipped out, though.

-H

My guess is that it starts with L and rhymes with 'dove'. Also, she's losing EVERYTHING with that sentence--not just Ansom, but the remains of her homeland, for what little sentiment it holds, as well as her chances of revenge. She's already revealed herself to be reckless at times--she might be out-and-out suicidal, in a pinch like that.

As far as Vinnie goes... it's profound to me the ways in which these cutsey 'units' are revealing what we'd call humanity. As one of the Klogs says--they don't know what 'children' are. They pop fully formed... but that doesn't necessarily mean that they don't age, mentally. Strong units, like Jillian, Ansom, or, hell, BOGROLL, that survive multiple engagements and 'grow' because of it--it affects their outlook on life, and the decisions that they make. (Rest in peace, you poor Twoll. You deserved better...)

That growth, as I think we can see here, can be shockingly painful, more often than not... just because they get stronger because they're able to kill others.

Imagine that, for a minute--a world in which only the capable people/units survive, and many lower caste people are constantly forced into combat, so much so that it's part of their NATURE. How would that affect them? How would that affect US? They obviously grieve those they love and care for.

Just how cruel is the real nature of Erfworld?

(minor edit)

PS--She now would believe she'll never get closure with WANDA, either-though I doubt she's thinking that far ahead.

Jeez. She really DID lose everything.

Architect
2009-04-04, 03:22 PM
It's a disarming move. Basically you twist your wrist until their wrist either lets go of the knife, breaks, or one after the other. Panel 3 is Jillian's "I can't hold on to the knife anymore because of the pain!" face.
Strength and leverage are major factors in a successful disarm, so it's clear that he's a heck of a lot stronger than Jillian to do it that way.


(I'm not sure how he pulled off holding her wrist to holding her hand in that disarming move, but I'll just figure he's got really long and strong fingers.)
He's so much stronger that he can do an improper disarm and get away with it. Jillian is not Buffy with supernatural strength.

Sutremaine
2009-04-04, 03:23 PM
Am I the only one interpreting the current strip's events as the reveleation of the secret crush for Ansom Vinnie had been hiding all this timem unable to express his true feelings out of respect for the leader of the coalition?
I thought that was already covered by the Captain Jack reference. :smalltongue:

I suppose you could interpret it that way (I did for a second, just for amusement). But hoyay is so common now that sometimes it's more interesting to leave it out of a relationship.

chefsotero
2009-04-04, 03:29 PM
Disagree. I still think that's just part of their theme. Their customs include drinking the blood of slain enemies, but there's nothing supernatural about it.

Interesting to see Vinne mourning though.

Well Occan' razor my friend, no hard proof either way but evidence sugesting strongly their vapireness...

"If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, I'm calling it a duck"



OTOH, it was hot enough when it was set off to ignite the Archons by radiation heating alone. It would probably take at least a few turns to cool down so Stanley can land.

That was just an hypotesis as far as I know, maybe the Archons got booped by flying magma.

Nevrmore
2009-04-04, 03:42 PM
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha ha

Roszlishan
2009-04-04, 04:02 PM
Am I the only one interpreting the current strip's events as the reveleation of the secret crush for Ansom Vinnie had been hiding all this timem unable to express his true feelings out of respect for the leader of the coalition?


Probably not, but I see no evidence in the text for it. Vinnie and Ansom were friends, good friends, and there's no evidence that it was anything more than a good friendship. If you're looking for a coded gay relationship (and why would you be, when Wanda's affair with Jillian was so clearly depicted in uncoded terms) you might take a closer look at Bogroll and Parson.

Please note, there's nothing in the text that I'm aware of that would disprove your assertion, either. I just see nothing beyond friendship.

Roszlishan

Kreistor
2009-04-04, 04:07 PM
Erfworld #148 (page 135) showed a full magma chamber. That means that there was still sufficient pressure to feed it, but insufficient pressure to to overcome the blockage.

There can be magma without pressure. Yellowstone park sits on a thin layer of mantle, which puts magma nearer the surface than is normal for the continent, and the result is magma plumes nearer the surface, heating the steam that drives the geysers, hot springs, etc. (And might erupt into the largest volcano the planet has ever seen since it formed, like it has several times before.) Magma can sit in place for millenia. Mt. St. H could have been foreseen to have an eruption because the days before saw parts of the mountain rising, almost visibly, from the pressure below. IN fact, it's doing it again now. In the burst out part a new peak is rising, suggesting Mt. St. H is not done with us yet.

That's my point. With no natural pressure feeding the magma upward, it would just sit there.


No, we haven't seen any physical treasury yet. In that strip, Stanley is just approving the expenditure for buying the mega-spell.

Can't take it with you. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0006.html) So, in your opinion, why can't they take the treasury with them? We know they mine gems. Perhaps the treasures in the tresury are, maybe, gemstones? I dunno... just seems to make a ton of sense to me. Explains why they can't be taken with Stanley, or at least in small quantity only and can be captured. It doesn't seem to me that a virtual number like our bank accounts can be captured by taking a city.

Hell Puppi
2009-04-04, 04:46 PM
Sooo...
if Vinny= Captain Jack
Then Ansom = Will Turner
that means...

Jack is Norrington?
He was nice but just kind of boring when compared to the other options?


...or am I thinking of the wrong Captain Jack?

Roszlishan
2009-04-04, 04:48 PM
Disagree. I still think that's just part of their theme. Their customs include drinking the blood of slain enemies, but there's nothing supernatural about it.

Interesting to see Vinne mourning though.


Theme? Theme? THEME? What precisely is the difference between this theme and Transylvito being vampires? Gray skin color, they fly, bats, drinking blood, glowing red eyes, and yet they're not vampires? Would not it be the case that Transylvitoans being vampires would match that theme better than their not being vampires?

[QUOTE=dr pepper;5956171]... nothing supernatural ...[QUOTE]

About flying? Glowing red eyes? This is Erfworld. Why must vampires be supernatural? Why can't it just be more natural magic, like the Thinkamancy that imbues Loyalty and Duty - in fact, it would almost have to be that. Not vampires? Seriously?

Rosz

Roupe
2009-04-04, 04:55 PM
I dont agree of the assessment that Vinnie had a secret crush for Ansom.

Vinnie would have ample reasons to mourn for

Loosing "girlfriends" among Charlies Archons
Loosing friends ,the warlords in the alliance warcabinet including Ansom

Kreistor
2009-04-04, 05:15 PM
About flying? Glowing red eyes? This is Erfworld. Why must vampires be supernatural? Why can't it just be more natural magic, like the Thinkamancy that imbues Loyalty and Duty - in fact, it would almost have to be that. Not vampires? Seriously?

Because Supernatural comes from our world, where magic is inherently supernatural.

fruityjanitor
2009-04-04, 05:16 PM
Amazing comic! I've always loved Vinnie and seeing his reaction was awesome, touching, and sad too.

We must be very close to the end now. Can't wait to see where it ends :)

Lamech
2009-04-04, 05:28 PM
I'm surprised no one else has commented on this; bloodless carnage was one of the defining characteristics of Erfworld, going with the whole "for kids" theme. I'd think that the TVs would have to first CREATE blood in their victims in order to drink it!
I suspect that the blood drinking is a special ablity of the translovito's. Their is probably no bleeding unless it is caused by a special ablity. The blood probably just stays in; like DnD.


He's so much stronger that he can do an improper disarm and get away with it. Jillian is not Buffy with supernatural strength.
Or she does have super-strength just not Vampire Chief Warlord prince level.


Those swords have the same glow as the "evil" GK's. These guys are definitly a generic evil side. It just remains to be seen if they actually are evil jerks. If they are... fast moving air units against the defenseless alliance?

Wadoka
2009-04-04, 05:35 PM
This is the second page with the Peeps (Gwiffons) huddled up by the fire.

Mmmm... toasted marshmallow!

Architect
2009-04-04, 05:38 PM
There can be magma without pressure.
[...]
That's my point. With no natural pressure feeding the magma upward, it would just sit there.
Perhaps I am mistaken, but appeared to have been a conventional magma chamber. It had to have had pressure or it would have emptied and collapsed. Otherwise they would have had to drawn up enormous amounts of magma at incredible pressure to create that chamber. That would be earth-shattering power... which would makes one wonder why Parson waited until the end to have them join.

Midnight Roamer
2009-04-04, 05:50 PM
Can't take it with you. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0006.html) So, in your opinion, why can't they take the treasury with them? We know they mine gems. Perhaps the treasures in the tresury are, maybe, gemstones? I dunno... just seems to make a ton of sense to me. Explains why they can't be taken with Stanley, or at least in small quantity only and can be captured. It doesn't seem to me that a virtual number like our bank accounts can be captured by taking a city.

Sense really seems to be irrelevant in some cases. Marshmallow peeps flying through the air and doing battle with dragons? I think the word "know" is a little too strong to be used regarding anything that hasn't been directly featured in the comic. The only thing we "know" about the treasury is that it can be captured, and that gems have some sort of monetary value. This doesn't mean that the treasury has to be physical, I mean how would the Marbits fit the huge gem they find in the first strip into their bank? It's the size of a building. Stanley can pay upkeep without being at the capital, how is this possible with a physical treasury? I'm not saying that a physical treasury is not possible, but that we don't really know much about it.

fractal
2009-04-04, 05:51 PM
It doesn't seem to me that a virtual number like our bank accounts can be captured by taking a city.
It would work just fine, if the money was under the name of your capital city, and anyone showing up at the bank with the deed for your capital could claim the funds.

elrod13
2009-04-04, 06:15 PM
Here are some thoughts:
It is widely ASSUMED that the Casters went to the "Majick Kingdom".
We do not KNOW where Parson went.
Stanley and Jack were last seen headed back to GK.
And Ceasare is now forcing Jillian to go to Faq.

What if the Casters (and Parson) wind up in Faq? Jillian went barbarian. Therefore (we think) Faq is OPEN, and available to be conquered. Parson and the Casters "take" Faq for the Tool.

Vinnie and TV will have to attack Faq to take it. Stanley will arrive at his ruined capitol, to realize that he is NOT yet a barbarian... and must hury to the ONLY place he can think of that his resourses can be.

PURE, mindless speculation on my part. I'm looking forward to see what really happens next...

:smallsmile:

Kreistor
2009-04-04, 06:47 PM
Perhaps I am mistaken, but appeared to have been a conventional magma chamber. It had to have had pressure or it would have emptied and collapsed. Otherwise they would have had to drawn up enormous amounts of magma at incredible pressure to create that chamber.

The chamber was left over from the previous eruption: it's only following the path of least resistance, the path it followed once before. But the natural world wasn't creating the pressure, or the volcano wouldn't have needed help to explode on its own. The spell had to create that pressure, or create low pressure in the rock above, in order to cause the magma to well up. It can't come up without it. Magma is under everything in the world, so usually magma does not well up and create volcanos. Magma needs something to help it along -- weakness above or strength below; otherwise, it would rise up everywhere all the time. The crust of the earth is thinner than an egg shell.

dr pepper
2009-04-04, 07:21 PM
I suppose I can see things from Caesar's point of view: After all, there's a war going on and he doesn't have time to handle people with kid gloves.

Don't care. I wanted to see Caesar dead the first time he said "chickie" and my opinion hasn't changed.

StClair
2009-04-04, 07:27 PM
I thought that was already covered by the Captain Jack reference. :smalltongue:

I suppose you could interpret it that way (I did for a second, just for amusement). But hoyay is so common now that sometimes it's more interesting to leave it out of a relationship.

It's overused, yes. To the point where some people (fans especially) seem to find it inconceivable that two people of any combination of genders can have a close relationship with deep trust, etc without sexual feelings being involved somehow. :smallannoyed:

dr pepper
2009-04-04, 07:58 PM
Ok, now i'm confused. I got the "Captain Jack" reference. He's the lead character in Torchwood and he's notorious for his libido. Calling him "bi" would be an unwarrented restriction, he's been with creatures so alien, he not only couldn't tell what sex they were, he wouldn't understand the meaning of it.

What i don't understand are who the others are supposed to be.

Midnight Roamer
2009-04-04, 08:06 PM
The chamber was left over from the previous eruption: it's only following the path of least resistance, the path it followed once before. But the natural world wasn't creating the pressure, or the volcano wouldn't have needed help to explode on its own. The spell had to create that pressure, or create low pressure in the rock above, in order to cause the magma to well up. It can't come up without it. Magma is under everything in the world, so usually magma does not well up and create volcanos. Magma needs something to help it along -- weakness above or strength below; otherwise, it would rise up everywhere all the time. The crust of the earth is thinner than an egg shell.

Well, there's some pretty confusing information in here, statements that are all factual, but not necessarily congruent. It is true that magma forms under low pressure conditions relative to surrounding rock. Your assertion that magma is everywhere, all the time, and the suggestion that the earth's crust is thinner than an eggshell are both true, but not congruent. The type of magma that forms under low pressure conditions in the mantle and crust is not the same as what is in the superheated outer core of the earth. One can say that the outer core is beneath everything, at all times, but one wouldn't be talking about the magma involved in volcanic eruptions. The implication of your post, that magma lies everywhere, beneath an eggshell-like layer of the earth's crust is untrue. Magma only forms in the crust and mantle under particular conditions, not everywhere. Molten rock in the outer core lie under the crust and mantle, which are far thicker than an eggshell by comparison.

But again, I'm really having problems with debates on the geological structure of erfworld. It may be that the duration of the eruption is governed by traditional geology as in the real world. It may also be that an uncroaked volcano lasts exactly x turns before becoming dormant. We simply do not know, and I look forward to seeing what the guys do with the volcano in the future.

Midnight Roamer
2009-04-04, 08:16 PM
It's overused, yes. To the point where some people (fans especially) seem to find it inconceivable that two people of any combination of genders can have a close relationship with deep trust, etc without sexual feelings being involved somehow. :smallannoyed:

True, especially two guys. "You talked about your feelings? OMG are you two gay for each other?" Course, there's already been suggestions that Jillian and Vinnie are gonna end up in the sack together too, so cliche'.

Kreistor
2009-04-04, 09:07 PM
But again, I'm really having problems with debates on the geological structure of erfworld. It may be that the duration of the eruption is governed by traditional geology as in the real world. It may also be that an uncroaked volcano lasts exactly x turns before becoming dormant. We simply do not know, and I look forward to seeing what the guys do with the volcano in the future.

Thank you. That leads into someting I wanted to talk about, but didn't think was appropraite from teh last post in this thread.

How does an author decide how a volcanic eruption occurs? Yes, Rob has the freedom to say, "This is Erfworld, so it doesn't have to be Earth real." But there's a problem with that. We readers need reference points. We don't know erfworld physics. We can't know how the reaction will be different without Rob telling us. And any deviation may be misinterpreted.

So it is always best to use real world reference points, and not fall back on the lazy support of "It's magical.".

Pete Abrams does Sluggy Freelance (http://www.sluggy.com/).He created an event where an electrical cord was used to shock someone hanging off the edge of a ship (http://www.sluggy.com/daily.php?date=050925). Problem was, those of us that know electricity know the man on the rope is immune to the shock. Pete had really done some homework and thought he knew enough, but he was wrong, and a number of electrical engineers called him on it. So he had to fix things by inventing a different energy (http://www.sluggy.com/daily.php?date=050926), which he apologized for on the forums. He wanted real science and wound up having to make it up.

That's what an author does: he studies. And in the face of limited time to study? You copy. It's happened one way before, so let's do it that way. Most won't know the details, so they won't know he copied, and those that do won't care, because they like accuracy.

I can't say which eruption Rob is copying here, and I doubt he'll show us much more to work off of. Mt. St. Helens and the Pompeii destrction by Vesuvius are good examples. MSH began with a large rockslide, then a pyroclastic flow and was followed by ash ejection. Vesuvius began with ash ejection and ended wiht a pyroclastic flow. We may not learn what eruption he used as a model, but I don't think he'd want to risk ire from geologists by making something up. It's so much easier to type "Vesuvius" into Wikipedia and using something accurate. It also allows your mind to work on real problems that you need creative solutions for.

So, yeah, I think this eruption will be earth accurate. It's easier, faster, and gains you more respect from readers that know the subject, losing nothing from the ones that will never know what you did.

worfle
2009-04-04, 09:15 PM
That Jillian actually believed him, and attacked overrwhhelming strength regardless, backs a suicide attempt. The defenseless back-blade grip, covert attack, and angered grief all put this attack in the, "Send me to Ansom" school of thought.



Sorry, lurk usually, but I saw a lot of this in the last thread and I just thought I'd share with people that using a grip like Jillian did in the last comic is common for some knife fighters. Mostly for people using two knives, but I've seen some do it with one. My dad used to knife fight when he was younger (Mexico City has some very rough neighborhoods), and we talked about and watched a lot of weapons fighting when I was younger.

It isn't common, but it does happen. Just thought I'd point that out, because people seem to be taking it as a story choice, but I wouldn't be so sure.

*Edit* I think her attack was simply her way of showing grief. She has shown in the past to be thoughtless and her character is stated to use violence as a first solution. Plenty of people pound on the bearer of bad news, and she is a lot more psychotic than your average person. Plus she is being held captive. That doesn't scream "attempted-suicide" to me. It shows that she is already in a situation where she hates Caesar and he just gave her a "good" reason to act on that hate.

chefsotero
2009-04-04, 09:32 PM
Sooo...
if Vinny= Captain Jack

...or am I thinking of the wrong Captain Jack?

I think this Cap. Jack is Jack Harkness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Harkness) from the dr. who's spinoff torchwood

fendrin
2009-04-04, 09:36 PM
Thank you. That leads into someting I wanted to talk about, but didn't think was appropraite from teh last post in this thread.

How does an author decide how a volcanic eruption occurs? Yes, Rob has the freedom to say, "This is Erfworld, so it doesn't have to be Earth real." But there's a problem with that. We readers need reference points. We don't know erfworld physics. We can't know how the reaction will be different without Rob telling us. And any deviation may be misinterpreted.

So it is always best to use real world reference points, and not fall back on the lazy support of "It's magical.".

Pete Abrams does Sluggy Freelance (http://www.sluggy.com/).He created an event where an electrical cord was used to shock someone hanging off the edge of a ship (http://www.sluggy.com/daily.php?date=050925). Problem was, those of us that know electricity know the man on the rope is immune to the shock. Pete had really done some homework and thought he knew enough, but he was wrong, and a number of electrical engineers called him on it. So he had to fix things by inventing a different energy (http://www.sluggy.com/daily.php?date=050926), which he apologized for on the forums. He wanted real science and wound up having to make it up.

That's what an author does: he studies. And in the face of limited time to study? You copy. It's happened one way before, so let's do it that way. Most won't know the details, so they won't know he copied, and those that do won't care, because they like accuracy.

I can't say which eruption Rob is copying here, and I doubt he'll show us much more to work off of. Mt. St. Helens and the Pompeii destrction by Vesuvius are good examples. MSH began with a large rockslide, then a pyroclastic flow and was followed by ash ejection. Vesuvius began with ash ejection and ended wiht a pyroclastic flow. We may not learn what eruption he used as a model, but I don't think he'd want to risk ire from geologists by making something up. It's so much easier to type "Vesuvius" into Wikipedia and using something accurate. It also allows your mind to work on real problems that you need creative solutions for.

So, yeah, I think this eruption will be earth accurate. It's easier, faster, and gains you more respect from readers that know the subject, losing nothing from the ones that will never know what you did.

On the other hand, we already know 'a wizard did it' as the saying goes. So really Rob can't do it wrong, whether based on a real eruption or not.

Kreistor
2009-04-04, 09:59 PM
Sorry, lurk usually, but I saw a lot of this in the last thread and I just thought I'd share with people that using a grip like Jillian did in the last comic is common for some knife fighters. Mostly for people using two knives, but I've seen some do it with one. My dad used to knife fight when he was younger (Mexico City has some very rough neighborhoods), and we talked about and watched a lot of weapons fighting when I was younger.

Oh, I agree with you and your dad, under the specific situation of defending against a knife. But we're talking Erfworld here: Jillian may have to defend againts a huge two-hander. When talking about a weak defense, I'm talking about in wider circumstances than just knife on knife (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0077.html). (Love to know if she's planning on stabbing that dwagon to free her other arm, or thinking she can block Manpower.)

Against a light slash with no mass behind it, the back-blade is fine. You pretty much need to dodge or redirect a thrust anyway, so form doesn't matter. But Jillian is fighting an unarmed opponent anyway.

But let's put a sword in Caesar's hand. It has mass and momentum. When you block even a slash, your wrist breaks into the forearm, driving your own blade into your arm. Sure, edge out, but that point is still capable of cutting you.

All the power in your wrist is designed to curl the hand inwards: it's about 4x more poweful than pulling back on the wrist. So with the back-blade grip, you've got the weakest strength holding the blade in position. (I have a 20lb weight here. I can curl it easily 8 times and can probably push double that if I want to strain. Flip my hand over, and try to lift it up? One lift, and maybe a second. Careful what you use if you try this at home. Best to stop in at a sports store, and try it there pretending to shop. Anyway, you can still use it to deflect the blow with, but the backblade can't block. Really, forward it couldn't block, either. Blade has no guard. Really need a guard for front blade grip defense.

Kreistor
2009-04-04, 10:13 PM
The type of magma that forms under low pressure conditions in the mantle and crust is not the same as what is in the superheated outer core of the earth.

Really? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cascade_Range-related_plate_tectonics.svg) I don't disbelieve you, but I'd like some reference. I used Wikipedia for everything... just type in Mt. St. Helens, Yellowstone, and Vesuvius. Backed that up with some stuff from TV (like Supervolcano about Yellowstone, which was on this very night in Canada on Discovery. No kidding! Seen it before, though.) The image above shows the magma from MSH coming directly from the upper mantle. Now, that might not be right. Sure, it might come from that mantle heating NA plate rocks, and that wells up. But I'm guessing. Can you clarify and source me?


One can say that the outer core is beneath everything, at all times, but one wouldn't be talking about the magma involved in volcanic eruptions.

Well, MSH or Vesuvius, maybe not. But the Iceland and sub-Atlantic eruptions, where the plates are separating? You'd find it hard to convince me that wasn't coming straight up from the mantle. But hey, reference me, please. I love to learn.

Fishman
2009-04-05, 01:43 AM
I'm surprised no one else has commented on this; bloodless carnage was one of the defining characteristics of Erfworld, going with the whole "for kids" theme. I'd think that the TVs would have to first CREATE blood in their victims in order to drink it!
It could be bloodless blood drinking. After all, when vampires drink blood, there is typically not splurching gushing wounds everywhere, they just clamp on, make holes, and drink. The blood exists, it simply doesn't gush everywhere in a decidedly non-kid-safe way.

teratorn
2009-04-05, 01:46 AM
In the illustration from one of the klogs Vinny also looked like he had been affected by Jaclyn's death.

Jillian had 4 peeps involved in this battle, at least two survived. There must be 4 or 5 nearby, the ones with lower move. Probably also a few orlies and unipegataurs (it's not clear if all of them were killed by Wanda). Depending on how many bats got killed by the dwagons Caeser may end up regretting his attitude.

tomaO2
2009-04-05, 01:54 AM
Not even going think about it being used as an ominous turn of phrase? There's nothing other than logic (not always the best way to anticipate Rob and Jamie!) to mark that as a literal threat.

No, it's quite impossible that this is simply a turn of phrase, although you are right that the phrase isn't technically correct.

You see, blood, as we know it, doesn't exist in Erfworld. Don't believe me? Look at anyone that's wounded and you will not see any blood.

Therefore blood can only be interpreted as meaning something else. Perhaps lifeforce? I imagine they get a red liquid that pops up that they call blood but for them to associate what pops up with something they can drain from another unit means they must be serious when they say it.

If there was no connection then it would be like when Wanda asked, "what is a child?" For it to be a threat it must mean that it's posssible.

Natio
2009-04-05, 04:51 AM
No, it's quite impossible that this is simply a turn of phrase, although you are right that the phrase isn't technically correct.

You see, blood, as we know it, doesn't exist in Erfworld. Don't believe me? Look at anyone that's wounded and you will not see any blood.

Therefore blood can only be interpreted as meaning something else. Perhaps lifeforce? I imagine they get a red liquid that pops up that they call blood but for them to associate what pops up with something they can drain from another unit means they must be serious when they say it.

If there was no connection then it would be like when Wanda asked, "what is a child?" For it to be a threat it must mean that it's posssible.


I'd argue that it might not be that literal. When people are threatening to be particularly viscious they might say similar things like I'll drink your blood after I boop you up etc...

Midnight Roamer
2009-04-05, 06:20 AM
Really? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cascade_Range-related_plate_tectonics.svg) I don't disbelieve you, but I'd like some reference. I used Wikipedia for everything... just type in Mt. St. Helens, Yellowstone, and Vesuvius. Backed that up with some stuff from TV (like Supervolcano about Yellowstone, which was on this very night in Canada on Discovery. No kidding! Seen it before, though.) The image above shows the magma from MSH coming directly from the upper mantle. Now, that might not be right. Sure, it might come from that mantle heating NA plate rocks, and that wells up. But I'm guessing. Can you clarify and source me?

Well, first, I never said that magma did not come out of the mantle, I was merely pointing out the difference between the molten rock we call magma and the molten rock in the outer core. I was disagreeing with your statement that "magma is under everything in the world". This is incorrect, and if it were true, all magma would be under intense pressure with literally the weight of the world upon it. The outer core, which IS under everything on the world is not made of the same stuff, so your assertion is incorrect.
I agreed with you that magma formed under low pressure conditions. I also agreed that it formed in the upper mantle and crust. I just commented upon your juxtaposition of those facts and the statement that the earth's crust is thinner than an eggshell. Composed of calcium carbonate, the eggshell is relatively strong, but brittle. The earth's crust is a bit more flexible.
I used Wikipedia as well, but I looked up magma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magma). If you look at composition on the same page, you will note that composition varies. I wandered over to outer core (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_core) but found only a stub. Still, in the stub the outer core's composition is given as nickel and iron. I did some skimming of an article available through my University Library, but I don't think the links would work here, as I'm not likely to post my password to log into the library. Either way, the same solution presents itself. Molten rock in the outer core is primarily nickel and iron, a composition that is given to us by tests because we don't ever see it. Magma in the mantle and crust are made of various silicates, and the composition varies more than that of the molten core.

Midnight Roamer
2009-04-05, 06:24 AM
Well, MSH or Vesuvius, maybe not. But the Iceland and sub-Atlantic eruptions, where the plates are separating? You'd find it hard to convince me that wasn't coming straight up from the mantle. But hey, reference me, please. I love to learn.

Exactly right. It comes from the mantle, which is distinct from the outer core, which is specifically what I stated in the sentence you quoted.

Midnight Roamer
2009-04-05, 06:28 AM
On the other hand, we already know 'a wizard did it' as the saying goes. So really Rob can't do it wrong, whether based on a real eruption or not.

It really depends on how important it is to the authors and audience that the facts are correct with regard to real world physics and geology. I really don't think there's going to be much about the inner workings of the volcano in future strips.

Gez
2009-04-05, 06:45 AM
It really depends on how important it is to the authors and audience that the facts are correct with regard to real world physics and geology.

Especially given how Erfworld is quite blatantly not the real world.

Kreistor
2009-04-05, 07:47 AM
Well, first, I never said that magma did not come out of the mantle, I was merely pointing out the difference between the molten rock we call magma and the molten rock in the outer core. I was disagreeing with your statement that "magma is under everything in the world". This is incorrect, and if it were true, all magma would be under intense pressure with literally the weight of the world upon it. The outer core, which IS under everything on the world is not made of the same stuff, so your assertion is incorrect.
I agreed with you that magma formed under low pressure conditions. I also agreed that it formed in the upper mantle and crust. I just commented upon your juxtaposition of those facts and the statement that the earth's crust is thinner than an eggshell. Composed of calcium carbonate, the eggshell is relatively strong, but brittle. The earth's crust is a bit more flexible.
I used Wikipedia as well, but I looked up magma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magma). If you look at composition on the same page, you will note that composition varies. I wandered over to outer core (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_core) but found only a stub. Still, in the stub the outer core's composition is given as nickel and iron. I did some skimming of an article available through my University Library, but I don't think the links would work here, as I'm not likely to post my password to log into the library. Either way, the same solution presents itself. Molten rock in the outer core is primarily nickel and iron, a composition that is given to us by tests because we don't ever see it. Magma in the mantle and crust are made of various silicates, and the composition varies more than that of the molten core.

Okay, so what you're angry with me about is that I don't have access to better information, and I'm not figuring out what experts have kept secret?

fendrin
2009-04-05, 08:01 AM
It really depends on how important it is to the authors and audience that the facts are correct with regard to real world physics and geology. I really don't think there's going to be much about the inner workings of the volcano in future strips.

Not really; see, even if erfworld has real-world geology and physics (which to large extents I find doubtful), this was not a normal volcanic eruption. Why should we expect it to follow the normal patterns of volcanic eruptions? It may have been part of the magic that caused it to have the magma chamber emptied and plugged, essentially turning GK from dormant/croaked volcano to normal mountain.

For that matter, as far as we know, the magic caused the entire mountain to explode and there's nothing left but a crater.

Remember, the 'a wizard did it' (ironically the title of the most recent OotS page) trope is that if a fantasy world has anything in it that violates the expected norms or science (for instance, D&D owlbears (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owlbear)), it is explained away as being a magical effect. In this case, we already know the eruption was caused by magic. So the possible results are unlimited (considering that we have no concept on the limit of what magic can do in Erfworld; it in fact seems limitless).

Templar
2009-04-05, 08:42 AM
Vinnie Doombats continues to rock. I cannot tell you how pleased I am to see the guys really plugging away hard at this strip again.

SteveMB
2009-04-05, 08:50 AM
For it to be a threat it must mean that it's posssible.

I'm pretty sure that it's impossible to actually shove someone's head up their nether regions or pull their guts out through their nose, but people use phrases like that as threats all the time.

Midnight Roamer
2009-04-05, 08:54 AM
Okay, so what you're angry with me about is that I don't have access to better information, and I'm not figuring out what experts have kept secret?

Angry? You've argued with other posters regarding the veracity of their claims, does that mean that you are angry with them? I'm not arguing out of anger, I'm just very confused with how you construct some of your arguments. In some of your posts, you seem to be confusing the mantle with the outer core. In other posts, you're pretty clear on the distinction. I was merely correcting what I saw as inconsistencies in your research. If you will recall, I even suggested that none of our discussion was relevant to the comic, which opened up another line of conversation that others have continued. Just as you are entitled to respond to my comments on your posts, I am entitled to respond to yours. Please don't comment on my emotional state when you don't know me, and when I have given no explicit indication as to its state.

Secret? All the information I've accessed is clearly available in Wikipedia, which you have referenced yourself. I assumed that you would want more than a stub for a reference and so I found them, but then decided not to use them. I merely pointed out that I found some articles on geology through my library so no one would think that I hadn't pursued the issue further. (Maybe I should have edited it out, my mistake.) Of course, I could be lying, but so could everyone.

fendrin
2009-04-05, 08:58 AM
...I found some articles on geology through my library...

Out of curiosity, what articles? Some of us also have access to scholarly journals (and I want to take advantage of it as much as possible while I can).

Midnight Roamer
2009-04-05, 09:04 AM
Not really; see, even if erfworld has real-world geology and physics (which to large extents I find doubtful), this was not a normal volcanic eruption. Why should we expect it to follow the normal patterns of volcanic eruptions? It may have been part of the magic that caused it to have the magma chamber emptied and plugged, essentially turning GK from dormant/croaked volcano to normal mountain.

For that matter, as far as we know, the magic caused the entire mountain to explode and there's nothing left but a crater.

Remember, the 'a wizard did it' (ironically the title of the most recent OotS page) trope is that if a fantasy world has anything in it that violates the expected norms or science (for instance, D&D owlbears (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owlbear)), it is explained away as being a magical effect. In this case, we already know the eruption was caused by magic. So the possible results are unlimited (considering that we have no concept on the limit of what magic can do in Erfworld; it in fact seems limitless).

I'm pretty much there with you. I think the volcano has served its purpose. Unless a later strip involves a volcano-centric issue--such as Stanley being unable to rebuild GK because the volcano is still active, for instance--we've probably seen as much volcanic activity as we are going to.

Midnight Roamer
2009-04-05, 09:33 AM
Out of curiosity, what articles? Some of us also have access to scholarly journals (and I want to take advantage of it as much as possible while I can).

I had long since closed the window with the articles I browsed, but since you asked:
Here's an actual website (http://www.nineplanets.org/earth.html) I found, that anyone should be able to access.

I looked at this article (http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.uwf.edu/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WGF-4NN0WF9-2&_user=2139839&_coverDate=11%2F01%2F2007&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000054279&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=2139839&md5=d245ed05e5370ca4f42e5e3c258dd233), even though it's about extrasolar planets, the researchers' beginning point of reference is the earth. (If the link is broken, the article is available to your library through HW Wilson database. It's from Icarus Magazine (San Diego, CA v. 191 no. 1 (November 1 2007) p. 337-510. Authors are Sotin, C.; Grasset, A.; Mocquet, A.)

If you need more, I can find more, a couple of the sources I glanced at turned out to not be available in their full text online.

Killer Angel
2009-04-05, 10:57 AM
Mt. St. H could have been foreseen to have an eruption because the days before saw parts of the mountain rising, almost visibly, from the pressure below.

Perhaps the treasures in the tresury are, maybe, gemstones? I dunno... just seems to make a ton of sense to me. Explains why they can't be taken with Stanley, or at least in small quantity only and can be captured. It doesn't seem to me that a virtual number like our bank accounts can be captured by taking a city.


Indeed Mt. S. H. was foreseen by geologist (and the places around the mount were eveacuated). Only the real strenght of the explosion was unexpected... If I'm right, there's also a film documenting the explosion (taken at a not-so-safe distance).

On treasury, i think it's like the resources you gather in games like Starcraft. In Mines (under the cities) you collect minerals, etc., but the "money" are virtual: you have an amount of treasure, that you can spend (or keep safe for a later moment) only if you have a city and the relative structures to produce units.
You can leave the city, but you cannot take the treasure with you.

Killer Angel
2009-04-05, 11:21 AM
I had long since closed the window with the articles I browsed, but since you asked:
Here's an actual website (http://www.nineplanets.org/earth.html) I found, that anyone should be able to access.

If you need more, I can find more, a couple of the sources I glanced at turned out to not be available in their full text online.


While I find the thing very interesting, I suggest to limit the discussions on real geology applied to a fantasy world.
The Volcano has done his job, and from a narrative point, it's a great one!


...and you don't really want this, right?:

http://www.darthsanddroids.net/episodes/0150.html

:smallbiggrin:

chefsotero
2009-04-05, 11:43 AM
And About the zombocano, since Erfworld is based on an TBS game it should IMHO behave in 3 ways:

1) Count as a GK unit and therefore cease its "attack" when GK's turn ends

2) Count as a natural fenomem and last for N turns (Kinda like the random events in Master of Orion)

3) Count as a random unity and have it's own turn and last till its croaked again or expires as any uncroaked. (like neutral monsters in Battle of Westnoth or space monsters in MoO)

I see that to be way more self consistent than it behaving like MSH or vesuvius, given that those 2 happen in a RTSG not a TBSG. but in the end plotmancy trumps all.

chefsotero
2009-04-05, 11:50 AM
I'm pretty sure that it's impossible to actually shove someone's head up their nether regions or pull their guts out through their nose, but people use phrases like that as threats all the time.

But people do have heads, guts, noses and butts in our world, It would make litel sense to threat someone with "I will rip your Guseophilion and sitck it in your Felkon". In Erfworld it would make no sense to threaten someone with "I'll eat your children"

So to be a threat at least she needs to have blood and understand so. Regardless of the actual possibility of drinking it or not.

fendrin
2009-04-05, 12:08 PM
I had long since closed the window with the articles I browsed, but since you asked:
Here's an actual website (http://www.nineplanets.org/earth.html) I found, that anyone should be able to access.

I looked at this article (http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.uwf.edu/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WGF-4NN0WF9-2&_user=2139839&_coverDate=11%2F01%2F2007&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000054279&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=2139839&md5=d245ed05e5370ca4f42e5e3c258dd233), even though it's about extrasolar planets, the researchers' beginning point of reference is the earth. (If the link is broken, the article is available to your library through HW Wilson database. It's from Icarus Magazine (San Diego, CA v. 191 no. 1 (November 1 2007) p. 337-510. Authors are Sotin, C.; Grasset, A.; Mocquet, A.)

If you need more, I can find more, a couple of the sources I glanced at turned out to not be available in their full text online.

Thanks! I'll read through those when I have the time. There's just something so... primal.. about vulcanology. Brings out the inner child, yeh?

Kreistor
2009-04-05, 12:15 PM
Angry? You've argued with other posters regarding the veracity of their claims, does that mean that you are angry with them?

Sometimes. I try to tone my posts appropriately. New people get kid gloves, old people wiht histories I treat differently.

With you, it jus tseems you've had an angry tone. Just a sense, I guess. I've been keeping th kid gloves on, since I suspect that you are an expert here, but I can't know for certain until I've seen you back up claims. (I need to follow those links, but can't right now.) You have to understand that I meet a lot of "experts" that are really just trying to pretend to know things to fool people, or boost their ego. If you want to be an expert in Internet debating, you need to be ready to back up with source material.


I'm just very confused with how you construct some of your arguments. In some of your posts, you seem to be confusing the mantle with the outer core. In other posts, you're pretty clear on the distinction. I was merely correcting what I saw as inconsistencies in your research.

You're confused, but I think you explained your own confusion. I am not an expert. I am merely well read. I'm a computer engineer by trade, but a generalist by nature, and I have a head for trivia. I pick up a lot of what hear, but since I hear a wide variety, I have gaps in my knowledge. That's why I jump to things like Wikipedia before stalking too much about a topic. But if those sources are incomplete, as you learned "magma" is, my knowledge will be as well.


If you will recall, I even suggested that none of our discussion was relevant to the comic, which opened up another line of conversation that others have continued. Just as you are entitled to respond to my comments on your posts, I am entitled to respond to yours. Please don't comment on my emotional state when you don't know me, and when I have given no explicit indication as to its state.

Pshaw, I don't care if the discussion is relevant. I was hoping to improve my resources and knowledge. And to make sure you were the expert you were trying to appear to be. No one gets that assumption out of me.

As for emotional state, your writing always has a tone, and that tone may unintentionally pass on an emotion or attitude, whether you liek it or not. Without body language, with words alone, we often can't tell exactly what attitude we're projecting online. Controlling that attitude is vital: some peopel want to think that it's the reader's responsiblity not to read in unintended meanings, but the author that ensures unintended meanings are not present in writing doesn't need to rely on that presumption. Every word has a connotation of some sort, and making certain the wrong connotations aren't present can never be the responsibility of the reader.


Secret? All the information I've accessed is clearly available in Wikipedia, which you have referenced yourself. I assumed that you would want more than a stub for a reference and so I found them, but then decided not to use them. I merely pointed out that I found some articles on geology through my library so no one would think that I hadn't pursued the issue further. (Maybe I should have edited it out, my mistake.) Of course, I could be lying, but so could everyone.

Yes, secret. You just told me about information inaccessible to me. That's a secret, intended or not. I don't have access to a university library anymore, having graduated some time ago. If the information is basic, shouldn't it be on Wikipedia already? At this point, all basic info on common topics should be present. If not,basic, then who isn't putting accurate information on the site about it? The experts. Any joe schmuck can't edit Wikipedia anymore. It's up to experts like you to ensure information like this is accessible to generalists like me, thanks to Wikipedia policies. If no expert is willing to put it there, then the experts are keeping it hidden.

Midnight Roamer
2009-04-05, 02:12 PM
Sometimes. I try to tone my posts appropriately. New people get kid gloves, old people wiht histories I treat differently.

With you, it jus tseems you've had an angry tone. Just a sense, I guess. I've been keeping th kid gloves on, since I suspect that you are an expert here, but I can't know for certain until I've seen you back up claims. (I need to follow those links, but can't right now.) You have to understand that I meet a lot of "experts" that are really just trying to pretend to know things to fool people, or boost their ego. If you want to be an expert in Internet debating, you need to be ready to back up with source material.

No need for kid gloves here, and I'm no expert. I do, however have access to a great variety of resources on just about any subject. Most of what we have been discussing here should be available to anyone at a high school level in an earth science class. I didn't feel as if I was pointing out anything that was so esoteric as to make claims of expertise. Also, I have no need for expertise in internet debates, just enough information to conduct the debate.


Pshaw, I don't care if the discussion is relevant. I was hoping to improve my resources and knowledge. And to make sure you were the expert you were trying to appear to be. No one gets that assumption out of me.

But I do care if the discussion is relevant, and I'm sure the mods do as well. As often as this server "flails" I'd think that a great number of posts that wander off into full fledged discussions of unrelated topics would be discouraged, if not outright banned. After all, it's their server.


As for emotional state, your writing always has a tone, and that tone may unintentionally pass on an emotion or attitude, whether you liek it or not. Without body language, with words alone, we often can't tell exactly what attitude we're projecting online. Controlling that attitude is vital: some peopel want to think that it's the reader's responsiblity not to read in unintended meanings, but the author that ensures unintended meanings are not present in writing doesn't need to rely on that presumption. Every word has a connotation of some sort, and making certain the wrong connotations aren't present can never be the responsibility of the reader.

I've found that the reader's emotional state is far more important in how writing is received. Though the writer's state is important, it is the reader who is left to perceive anything that is--or is not--in the writing.


Yes, secret. You just told me about information inaccessible to me. That's a secret, intended or not. I don't have access to a university library anymore, having graduated some time ago. If the information is basic, shouldn't it be on Wikipedia already? At this point, all basic info on common topics should be present. If not,basic, then who isn't putting accurate information on the site about it? The experts. Any joe schmuck can't edit Wikipedia anymore. It's up to experts like you to ensure information like this is accessible to generalists like me, thanks to Wikipedia policies. If no expert is willing to put it there, then the experts are keeping it hidden.

...or they consider it so elementary that it can be construed as common knowledge. As far as expert knowledge is concerned, it was pretty difficult for me to locate a basic journal article on basic workings of the earth's interior. Instead, I found an article on extrasolar planets, plus a number of articles on geological history, which, unfortunately, were not all available in full text form on the internet.

Midnight Roamer
2009-04-05, 02:18 PM
Thanks! I'll read through those when I have the time. There's just something so... primal.. about vulcanology. Brings out the inner child, yeh?

Yes there is. I wish I had the chance to construct one of those working volcanoes in science class back in high school. However, I believe 'funds were low'. :smallmad:

Midnight Roamer
2009-04-05, 02:25 PM
But people do have heads, guts, noses and butts in our world, It would make litel sense to threat someone with "I will rip your Guseophilion and sitck it in your Felkon". In Erfworld it would make no sense to threaten someone with "I'll eat your children"

So to be a threat at least she needs to have blood and understand so. Regardless of the actual possibility of drinking it or not.

Well, even though I don't, technically, have a Guseophilion or Felkon--at least I hope I don't--I'd still construe the phrase as a threat of bodily injury. Of course that's based upon context and upon what would be a reasonable real world assumption that Guseophilion and Felkon were foreign names for parts of my body. I don't think it completely applies in Erfworld where everyone seems to speak the same language.
Would we be making the same assumptions if the Trannies were not based upon stereotypical vampires?
What if they still were everything we see as vampiric and had stated, "We'll drink your felkon over a peppy campfire tune..."? Would we still read "blood" in felkon?

fractal
2009-04-05, 03:01 PM
With you, it jus tseems you've had an angry tone. Just a sense, I guess. I've been keeping th kid gloves on, since I suspect that you are an expert here, but I can't know for certain until I've seen you back up claims. (I need to follow those links, but can't right now.) You have to understand that I meet a lot of "experts" that are really just trying to pretend to know things to fool people, or boost their ego. If you want to be an expert in Internet debating, you need to be ready to back up with source material.
I'm not an expert, but I have some knowledge in the field (something of a generalist, like you). Your original post prompted a similar reaction for me that it did for Midnight Roamer; I've rarely had so much desire to argue with a collection of statements that were individually true. Now, take that as you will (I decided not to make the post, and I don't intend to make it here), but I found Midnight Roamer's response to be reasonable.

Regarding the order of volcanic events - I wouldn't be surprised if first Zombie Volcano did whatever was necessary to croak all of the units in its own hex, then did whatever was necessary to croak the units in adjacent hexes. If it now decides to write its name in ash clouds in the sky, I'll be only mildly surprised by that.

chefsotero
2009-04-05, 04:09 PM
I don't think it completely applies in Erfworld where everyone seems to speak the same language.
Would we be making the same assumptions if the Trannies were not based upon stereotypical vampires?
What if they still were everything we see as vampiric and had stated, "We'll drink your felkon over a peppy campfire tune..."? Would we still read "blood" in felkon?

You would "read" some fluid that you have on your body. And Erfling do seen to have a concept of an foringner language (the Tool specifies that his warlord should be able to peack the language).
So either Erfling do have blood or Ceasar just told Jillian that he will be drinking her urin/bile/aminoatic fluid/some other bodly fluid (maybe an erfling specific).

There is another possibility, he was threatening her of drinking something that she posseses, her beer/juice/soda. This would be possible but very unlikely.....

I still find more likely that erflings do have blood, and either there is an specific mechanism to avoid bleeding in normal wounds or the Trannies (not so shure if I like that name) have an mechanism/thecnic to make someone bleed.

I like to think that the TV side is formed by classical vampires until proven otherwise

PS: Do visity your felkonologist oftem. Better safe than sorry :smallwink:

Lombard
2009-04-05, 04:30 PM
Heh, I was going to gripe about Vinny crying which kinda put me off, then I saw people calling Captain Jack on it so that puts an acceptable spin on the issue. :smallamused:

At least it's a more interesting subject than people going on about how many knife fighting styles they know or blabbing on about volcanism and geophysics. :smallyuk:

teratorn
2009-04-05, 05:09 PM
Jillian probably has a strike force on par with Caeser's group. There were a few peeps that didn't have the move to reach the bottleneck but they may be nearby. I'm not sure if unipegataurs survived Wanda's light show and if they had a side or were barbarians like Jill.

Getting Faq might be not as easy as Caeser thinks.

fractal
2009-04-05, 05:40 PM
Jillian probably has a strike force on par with Caeser's group. There were a few peeps that didn't have the move to reach the bottleneck but they may be nearby. I'm not sure if unipegataurs survived Wanda's light show and if they had a side or were barbarians like Jill.
I don't really believe that. Any units without the move to intercept Stanley would have been left with the column (and blown up by the volcano).

Jillian and her two gwiffons might be a match for Caesar and his bats (assuming he has any left) if she used her sword instead of a pocket knife, but definitely not if you throw any of the other Transylvito warlords and their bats into it.

teratorn
2009-04-05, 05:43 PM
I don't really believe that. Any units without the move to intercept Stanley would have been left with the column (and blown up by the volcano).

Then why didn't they assist Ansom when he raided the walls?

My guess is that being bound to Jillian, and having no warlord with them, they could not stay with the coalition once she broke alliance to join TV's side.

Kreistor
2009-04-05, 06:05 PM
...or they consider it so elementary that it can be construed as common knowledge. As far as expert knowledge is concerned, it was pretty difficult for me to locate a basic journal article on basic workings of the earth's interior. Instead, I found an article on extrasolar planets, plus a number of articles on geological history, which, unfortunately, were not all available in full text form on the internet.

And that's my point. I don't have hours to hunt down information that I don't know exists. I have time for basic verification. I'm not going twenty minutes to the library, and cracking open a dozen books on this subject just to chat about an event in a comic. This was hard for you to find, and you knew about it. If I don't, how am I to know when to stop looking? You can't know to search for something until you know it exists.

But as for "common knowledge", that's what Encyclopedias are for, and what Wikipedia is. They are intended to teach everyone, from the smallest child to the oldest of the old. It must, therefore, contain everything required to explain something. Now, Wikipedia is a work in progress. Not everything gets done right away. But the basics need to be there. Geology is not common knowledge -- none of it. You've seen "Ae you smarter than a 4th grader?" People forget their public school basics, especially things like history and geography. I saw two adults fail to answer, "What are buildings made of curved wood from Japan, China, and Korea called?" Pagoda, of course, but two average men on the street didn't know it. (Yes, I mean literally off the street. It was Cash Cab. I don't know if there's an American version: this one's from Toronto. Cabby picks up people off the street, surprises them by telling them they are on a game show, and asks trivia questions for cash.) They couldn't answer, going wiht "dojo" as a guess. They conked their heads when they got an answer, remembering finally. But the point is that things taught in school at a young age don't stick, and when it's technical and useless information, like a detail about the elemental make-up of magma in a continental volcano vs. oceanic, you can't rely on that as common knowledge. It's important for a small group of geologists, civil engineers, and some otehrs, but for the vast majority, it really is just trivia, and not common knowledge. Encyclopedias are there to answer questions like these. Water is pretty common, isn't it? From Wikipedia: "Water is a common chemical substance that is essential for the survival of all known forms of life." That's all common knowledge, isn't it? And yet it's there, because encyclopedias deal with common knowledge.


I'm not an expert, but I have some knowledge in the field (something of a generalist, like you). Your original post prompted a similar reaction for me that it did for Midnight Roamer; I've rarely had so much desire to argue with a collection of statements that were individually true.

Heh, I've never had so much problem with being right. (Yes, only partially right. Dramatizing.)

I've done a little more study, and I know which information I had wrong. I suspect it was due to when I went to school, and the slow change of science in schools relative to when it is discovered outside (tehre is always a lag as science goes from being proposed, agreed upon, and then the textboks change, and the schools get money for textbooks). I'm pretty sure I was taught a completely different formation of the outer mantle than you were. Wikipedia tells us that the Upper Mantle is solid (not liquid as I'm pretty certain i was taught long ago), and the lithosphere floats on a rocky layer with liquid properties called the asthenosphere. I guarantee, I never heard of that in high school: I'm pretty sure subducted plates descended into a molten mantle. Now the only truly liquid layer is much deeper: the outer core. Now let me point out that is seemingly inconsistent with this image (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tectonic_plate_boundaries.png) which looks to me like the asthenosphere is made of the same magma that wells up from the shield volcano. But go to the description of the asthenosphere, and it's not molten. The image shows that the magma is red, but the asthenosphere only slightly yellower... unless you know to look for that slight colour difference, it seems to be a liquid rock layer.

Still, you're not saying that I was wrong about magma, though? It can remain hot without pressure, and dormant for millenia, until something changes causing it to well up again?

Midnight Roamer
2009-04-05, 06:57 PM
And that's my point. I don't have hours to hunt down information that I don't know exists. I have time for basic verification. I'm not going twenty minutes to the library, and cracking open a dozen books on this subject just to chat about an event in a comic. This was hard for you to find, and you knew about it. If I don't, how am I to know when to stop looking? You can't know to search for something until you know it exists.

But as for "common knowledge", that's what Encyclopedias are for, and what Wikipedia is. They are intended to teach everyone, from the smallest child to the oldest of the old. It must, therefore, contain everything required to explain something. Now, Wikipedia is a work in progress. Not everything gets done right away. But the basics need to be there. Geology is not common knowledge -- none of it. You've seen "Ae you smarter than a 4th grader?" People forget their public school basics, especially things like history and geography. I saw two adults fail to answer, "What are buildings made of curved wood from Japan, China, and Korea called?" Pagoda, of course, but two average men on the street didn't know it. (Yes, I mean literally off the street. It was Cash Cab. I don't know if there's an American version: this one's from Toronto. Cabby picks up people off the street, surprises them by telling them they are on a game show, and asks trivia questions for cash.) They couldn't answer, going wiht "dojo" as a guess. They conked their heads when they got an answer, remembering finally. But the point is that things taught in school at a young age don't stick, and when it's technical and useless information, like a detail about the elemental make-up of magma in a continental volcano vs. oceanic, you can't rely on that as common knowledge. It's important for a small group of geologists, civil engineers, and some otehrs, but for the vast majority, it really is just trivia, and not common knowledge. Encyclopedias are there to answer questions like these. Water is pretty common, isn't it? From Wikipedia: "Water is a common chemical substance that is essential for the survival of all known forms of life." That's all common knowledge, isn't it? And yet it's there, because encyclopedias deal with common knowledge.

Isn't that the problem with internet discussions, though? Pretty much anyone can use common sources and pose as a faux expert an any topic. Look at the progression of this discussion.
We've come far afield from "how long will the volcano remain active?" We've gone into real-world physics, which may not even apply, and now here we are discussing what's 'really' supposed to be in encyclopedias. I spent maybe 20 mins looking up the information I used before. I spent even more time on the links I provided after, at someone's request, because I wanted to make sure that I gave good sources. Regardless of how far we've already gone, here I am looking at a big wall of text trying to figure out where it's going to end.

Here, at the tail end of the discussion, you throw up your hands and say, "I'm no expert, I don't have time to do the research". It's an interesting escape for someone who earlier requested sources from me. As if your position in life somehow entitles you to demand things from people that you would not do yourself. If you'd like the last word on this topic, you may have it.

Midnight Roamer
2009-04-05, 07:02 PM
I don't really believe that. Any units without the move to intercept Stanley would have been left with the column (and blown up by the volcano).

Jillian and her two gwiffons might be a match for Caesar and his bats (assuming he has any left) if she used her sword instead of a pocket knife, but definitely not if you throw any of the other Transylvito warlords and their bats into it.

I don't understand why people would think Jillian is a match for Ceasar. Isn't he a Chief Warlord? Don't his bats have extra Ooomph (tm)? By end of turn, any bats killed in his stack should be replaced, and I did see plenty of bats survive the scuffle with Stanley. All we see with Jillian are a couple of gwiffons. Even without stack, one to one, Jillian should be no match for him. If for some reason she gets some wacky bonus to fighting in the boundaries of her homeland, or if somehow Vinnie is able to aid her in combat (though I don't think he can) there may be complications. With what we know about the power levels involved, though, I'd have to say that the smart money is on Ceasar (who is a prick, btw).

Elhoim
2009-04-05, 07:11 PM
About the blood issue, she surely seem to have blood here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0039.html). Unless that red thing from her wounds is ketchup :smalltongue:

Midnight Roamer
2009-04-05, 07:21 PM
About the blood issue, she surely seem to have blood here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0039.html). Unless that red thing from her wounds is ketchup :smalltongue:

Hey, good catch. :smallsmile:
More here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0030.html) too. So okay, Felkin...err blood...does exist in Erf. I suppose it's just not as prominent as some people expect from a wargame comic.

teratorn
2009-04-05, 07:36 PM
I don't understand why people would think Jillian is a match for Ceasar. Isn't he a Chief Warlord?

She's a Royal. Stanley beat Caeser, Jillian would have killed him. She's pretty strong with a stack of peeps on her side.

Midnight Roamer
2009-04-05, 07:44 PM
She's a Royal. Stanley beat Caeser, Jillian would have killed him. She's pretty strong with a stack of peeps on her side.

Stanley has what is quite literally an epic artifact on his side, and full flight of dwagons, and he still just smacked down Ceasar, but didn't kill him.
Jillian is nobility and we know that gives her a bonus, but we don't know what that bonus is. Further, Transilvito is ruled by nobility, it is reasonable to assume that Ceasar has some title. Vinnie's a count, himself. Hell, Ceasar may even be a title rather than a name. I don't think she could take him, from what we see, he's already beaten her, unarmed when she pulled a knife on him, from relative surprise.

tomaO2
2009-04-05, 08:40 PM
About the blood issue, she surely seem to have blood here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0039.html). Unless that red thing from her wounds is ketchup :smalltongue:


Hey, good catch. :smallsmile:
More here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0030.html) too. So okay, Felkin...err blood...does exist in Erf. I suppose it's just not as prominent as some people expect from a wargame comic.

*sighs*

Neither link has blood. Neither Chef nor I said that people can't get wounded. It's quite obvious that there is flesh, bones and perhaps even organs underneath, as is made clear with the wounded dwagons (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0074.html) but there is no blood. Not a single drop anywhere. I suggest you read comics like Goblins (http://www.goblinscomic.com/) if you still don't understand the difference. That comic has buckets of blood.

Kreistor
2009-04-05, 09:07 PM
Here, at the tail end of the discussion, you throw up your hands and say, "I'm no expert, I don't have time to do the research". It's an interesting escape for someone who earlier requested sources from me. As if your position in life somehow entitles you to demand things from people that you would not do yourself. If you'd like the last word on this topic, you may have it.

Now, that's interesting. Let's ignore that over the three days of this, it's perfectly reasonable for me to find more moments to do more study. (I may not have had the time before the first one, but hey, we're not talking about just a comic volcano anymore... you're attacking my credibility, which I have a lot more time for.)

Do you think I made up the word "asthenosphere"? I had to pull that out of somewhere real (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asthenosphere). (Besides linking an image with Asthenosphere right on it last message, I mean.) And I didn't throw up my hands. I actually admitted I was wrong. I was bringing the argument back, away from the distractions, and trying to get back on the science you accused me of having wrong. Now that I have a better idea of what the modern science of geology says, I wanted to try to ensure I could reconstruct my earlier argument you'd complained about to your satisfaction: that was your complaint, after all, and you made your case adequately enough. This is what you wanted, wasn't it? You wantted me getting it right? But no, I get a characterization. "I'm no expert, I don't have time to do the research"? Where did that come from? I opened that paragraph with "I've done a little more study, and I know which information I had wrong." I brought up two facts previously unstated (asthenosphere and Upper Mantle state). Threw up my hands? I posted both my old knowledge and new? How is that giving up? Clearly I did the work to correct myself: there's no giving up in that.

So ultimately you really have me confused, but not about science: I can research, given sufficient time, so now that I know that my knowledge on this is not up to date, I can make it up to date, without any guidance if necessary so I don't need you. I'm confused about you. You're annoyed at me because I got it wrong, annoyed at me for wanting to know where to go to find the real knowledge, and annoyed at me for when I actually find it myself and get it right. I'm really wondering what I could have said that would have left you satisfied. I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that "nothing" is the right answer.

Architect
2009-04-05, 09:13 PM
[...]
I used Wikipedia as well, but I looked up magma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magma). If you look at composition on the same page, you will note that composition varies. I wandered over to outer core (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_core) but found only a stub. Still, in the stub the outer core's composition is given as nickel and iron. I did some skimming of an article available through my University Library, but I don't think the links would work here, as I'm not likely to post my password to log into the library. Either way, the same solution presents itself. Molten rock in the outer core is primarily nickel and iron, a composition that is given to us by tests because we don't ever see it. Magma in the mantle and crust are made of various silicates, and the composition varies more than that of the molten core.
The eruption is explosive. This suggests high SiO2.

Elhoim
2009-04-05, 09:25 PM
*sighs*

Neither link has blood. Neither Chef nor I said that people can't get wounded. It's quite obvious that there is flesh, bones and perhaps even organs underneath, as is made clear with the wounded dwagons (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0074.html) but there is no blood. Not a single drop anywhere. I suggest you read comics like Goblins (http://www.goblinscomic.com/) if you still don't understand the difference. That comic has buckets of blood.

Sure, it's not gory, nor bloody, but it's blood. Erfworld is running on the convention of showing no gory blood, like many games and shows do. Many movies have guns shoting people and no blood is seen, but that doesn't mean that people in them don't have blood. Check The Matrix Reloaded, for example. In the chateau fight (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Ezr_4LtC_w&feature=related) no blood is seen except when is needed to show that Neo is human. In the rest of the fight seing it is avoided, though you hear bloody sounds, you don't see actual blood. Same here, there was no need to show blood, but I'm pretty sure that it will appear when necesary.

It's an artistic and sometimes commercial convention usually made to appeal a wider audience or to avoid excessive goriness. That does not mean that blood does not exist, just that the creator avoids showing it and does so only when necessary.

And just for the sake of arguing, wounds, especially red ones, are coagulated blood. Just because you don't see them in the liquid state doesn't mean they are not blood.

teratorn
2009-04-05, 09:58 PM
I don't think she could take him, from what we see, he's already beaten her, unarmed when she pulled a knife on him, from relative surprise.
Yes, and Bogroll could also finish an unarmed Ansom. The knife fight doesn't mean much. Now if she pulled a gwiffon and her big sword...

I'd like to see her wipe the floor with the TV warlords and only spare Vinny because of this moment.

Midnight Roamer
2009-04-05, 11:03 PM
Yes, and Bogroll could also finish an unarmed Ansom. The knife fight doesn't mean much. Now if she pulled a gwiffon and her big sword...

I'd like to see her wipe the floor with the TV warlords and only spare Vinny because of this moment.

I guess I just don't like her that much. I suppose we will just have to see what happens if and when they throw down. Of course, it would hardly ever be a fair fight between the two, one is a main character and the other is not. She is expected to win, and I guess that's one reason why I'd like to see her lose.

chefsotero
2009-04-05, 11:14 PM
It's an artistic and sometimes commercial convention usually made to appeal a wider audience or to avoid excessive goriness. That does not mean that blood does not exist, just that the creator avoids showing it and does so only when necessary.

And just for the sake of arguing, wounds, especially red ones, are coagulated blood. Just because you don't see them in the liquid state doesn't mean they are not blood.

But there is the possibility that there is somekind of rule/mechanics/adaptation on the erflings that does not allow then to bleed, similar to the one that refrain then from cursing. For boop sake, it would be consitent with the scenario that there is no bleeding but there still blood.

So maybe its only not shown for aesthetics sake, maybe it does not flow but the fact that Ceasar mention it and Jillian understood makes it clear that Erfling do have blood.

tomaO2
2009-04-05, 11:35 PM
Quite right Chef.

I'm not sure why we need to argue this. We are all in basic agreement that "blood" exists.

It's quite clear that there is some sort of blood, Caesar said so.

The only point of concention is that blood hasn't shown itself in the conventional sense. Some seem to think that this is an artistic choice but when you have gory wounds of people/creatures that are half ripped open and there is not a drop to be had, it's a reasonable assumption that Erfworlders don't bleed when wounded. Why this is? No idea but it's pretty clear that it must be so. I'm personally of the opinion that "blood" is some sort of a stand in word for life essence but the exact mechanics don't matter.

I think it would be cool if Parson's blood was some kind of acid so any weapon that cut him would instantly dissolve.

Jon Pander
2009-04-06, 01:15 AM
That's no true! He spends a good deal of time in self-delusional illusions of grandeur.
Illusions of grandeur are of course a byproduct of foolamancy.

Delusions of grandeur, on the other hand, are the real deal.


Anyway, Vinnie finally reveals a soft side. Who would guess vampires can cry too?

Dude, you're surprised that goths cry?

Even if they're part goth and part mafia, they're still goth. That means deep down they're all whiny little crybabies who write bad poetry.

That's why they sing showtunes. It's the musical dance-fight equivalent of bad poetry.

Jon Pander
2009-04-06, 01:22 AM
The TV cahracters are powerful, Jillian is major nasty and Caeser took her down easily as vampires are super strong. Also they drink blood.
And yet Stanley laid the smackdown on Cesar and all of his bats in one hit.
What does that say about how powerful Stanley (with the hammer) is, compared to Cesar?


And I don't think Vinnie will be able to save her in the end.
Except that Don King seems to respect Vinny's opinion quite a bit.
That must have some major pull. Plus Vinny's a noble - he just doesn't lay it out like Ansom did.


Founding member of the "She's Dead Jim" Club.
I like my acronym better, but I'll still agree with your general message.

Jon Pander
2009-04-06, 01:24 AM
Now we get some hot, hot, comfort sex.

Bow chicka wow wow.

Jon Pander
2009-04-06, 01:26 AM
I wondered which kind of Vinnie Vinnie was. That reminded me of a Doogie Howser episode where Vinny is doing jury duty.

He's Vinnie Delpino all right.

Every characiture of a group, show, or story which involves Italians (or pseudo-Italians) must have at least one character named Vinny. It's the law.

I read that on the internet so it must be true.

Jon Pander
2009-04-06, 01:33 AM
Well, Vinnie has always been my favourite character in the (ex) coalition! :smallbiggrin:
And I also think it's one of the most brilliant tactical mind we've seen (always in the ex-coalition).
A great strip.

I mainly like him because he's one of the only people in the RCC who wasn't totally full of himself, and thought things out.

Jon Pander
2009-04-06, 01:34 AM
Erfworld #148 (page 135) showed a full magma chamber. That means that there was still sufficient pressure to feed it, but insufficient pressure to to overcome the blockage.

No need to explain how the volcano erupted. I'll explain in a foolproof way that needs no further explanation.


A wizard did it.

There. I can do TVTropes too, so nyaah.

Jon Pander
2009-04-06, 01:37 AM
Am I the only one interpreting the current strip's events as the reveleation of the secret crush for Ansom Vinnie had been hiding all this timem unable to express his true feelings out of respect for the leader of the coalition?

He -did- sing showtunes.....

Jon Pander
2009-04-06, 01:39 AM
OTOH, it was hot enough when it was set off to ignite the Archons by radiation heating alone.

Why the heck do you think they ignited from 'radiation heating' rather than .... say.... lava spurting up into the air and crisping them in the air, and then the panel showed the aftermath of them falling, flaming, to towards the ground.

Jon Pander
2009-04-06, 01:41 AM
I still don't get why Jillian suddenly flipped out, though.

Barbarian.

I repeat..

Thog anger easy. Thog like hit things. Whackety whack hack slash crush.

Jon Pander
2009-04-06, 01:45 AM
There can be magma without pressure. Yellowstone park sits on a thin layer of mantle, which puts magma nearer the surface than is normal for the continent, and the result is magma plumes nearer the surface, heating the steam that drives the geysers, hot springs, etc. (And might erupt into the largest volcano the planet has ever seen since it formed, like it has several times before.) Magma can sit in place for millenia. Mt. St. H could have been foreseen to have an eruption because the days before saw parts of the mountain rising, almost visibly, from the pressure below. IN fact, it's doing it again now. In the burst out part a new peak is rising, suggesting Mt. St. H is not done with us yet.
Hey you watched that Discovery Channel show also huh.

Actually the 'volcano' of Yellowstone is moving, in a way. It's so big that the tectonic plates move while the heat source underneath, building pressure, stays stationary. Every time the supervolcano erupt, it's a few hundred miles further east. The crust is moving.

Of course this has nothing at all to do with Erf. Erf might not have plate tectonics at all.

For all we know, volcanos on Erf erupt because of lava pixies getting cranky.

Jon Pander
2009-04-06, 01:48 AM
There can be magma without pressure.

Btw, gotta also correct you on something though it has no effect on the Erfworld storyline.

Magma under Yellowstone -is- creating pressure. The land has raised several feet over the last few years even from that pressure. Eventually it'll erupt like it has several times in the past

Discovery channel. Gotta love it.

Jon Pander
2009-04-06, 01:56 AM
Because Supernatural comes from our world, where magic is inherently supernatural.

Untrue.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke

"Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology." - Larry Niven.

"Any technology, no matter how primitive, is magic to those who do not understand it." - Mark Stanley

Jon Pander
2009-04-06, 02:24 AM
Don't care. I wanted to see Caesar dead the first time he said "chickie" and my opinion hasn't changed.

Same here.

Jon Pander
2009-04-06, 02:25 AM
It could be bloodless blood drinking.
I feel like making a joke about factless facts, but I happen to agree with you.

Jon Pander
2009-04-06, 02:47 AM
But people do have heads, guts, noses and butts in our world, It would make little sense to threat someone with "I will rip your Guseophilion and sitck it in your Felkon".

You are such a potty mouth.

Jon Pander
2009-04-06, 02:50 AM
Hey, good catch. :smallsmile:
More here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0030.html) too. So okay, Felkin...err blood...does exist in Erf. I suppose it's just not as prominent as some people expect from a wargame comic.

Could just be that Dragon's blood is different. Or dragons don't bleed :)

Lunaya
2009-04-06, 02:52 AM
Jon brings to mind a problem that I've been having since I joined these forums. Just how do you respond to 15 different quotes in one post? :smalleek: I always have to cut and paste.

Jon Pander
2009-04-06, 02:56 AM
[FONT="Comic Sans MS"][COLOR="Indigo"]*sighs*

Neither link has blood. Neither Chef nor I said that people can't get wounded. It's quite obvious that there is flesh, bones and perhaps even organs underneath, as is made clear with the wounded dwagons (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0074.html) but there is no blood. Not a single drop anywhere.

Could be that dwagon's don't bleed.

If Jillian was a dwagon, Cesar wouldn't have been able to make that sort of threat :)

Jon Pander
2009-04-06, 02:58 AM
Jon brings to mind a problem that I've been having since I joined these forums. Just how do you respond to 15 different quotes in one post? :smalleek: I always have to cut and paste.

If I knew how to quote multiple posts in one post, I wouldn't have done this :smallsmile:

WNxHasoroth
2009-04-06, 03:53 AM
You could just select someones post and paste it into your reply box, then wrap some quote tags around the thing, instead of, you know, spamming an entire bloody page.

teratorn
2009-04-06, 03:57 AM
I guess I just don't like her that much.

I really didn't like her that much. But now that she lost Ansom and is being harassed by Caeser I feel more sympathetic towards her. Jillian has personal motives to go after Parson, and she's reckless enough not to compromise.


If I knew how to quote multiple posts in one post, I wouldn't have done this :smallsmile:

In the old days we could simply tag all of them. With the new forum that's no longer possible.

Now I open one, cut, go back, open the other, cut, go back paste, etc. Your way also works, as long as the mods don't think of it as trying to inflate your post counts.

BLANDCorporatio
2009-04-06, 04:43 AM
Apart from the nice update, I just wanted to comment on the regularity of them- now that we're coming to a close, the question is when will the next chapter start?

Maybe it all ends- really ends, and is announced so- after about two more strips. But that was not my impression. Do we have an estimate of the pause between Battle for Gobwin Knob and Chapter 2: Transylvito strikes back (or whatever?).

Proud founding member of SINDY. Sometimes, you want probability to go in a back alley and serve plot like a cheap

Aeddan
2009-04-06, 06:11 AM
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke

"Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology." - Larry Niven.

"Any technology, no matter how primitive, is magic to those who do not understand it." - Mark Stanley

"Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from SCIENCE!" - Agatha Heterodyne, Girl Genius. :smalltongue:

Lombard
2009-04-06, 06:19 AM
And yet Stanley laid the smackdown on Cesar and all of his bats in one hit.
What does that say about how powerful Stanley (with the hammer) is, compared to Cesar?

That didn't really happen, it was the illusion created by the foolamancer.

Sweetie Welf
2009-04-06, 06:49 AM
That didn't really happen, it was the illusion created by the foolamancer.

Actually, that was real battle. Only the part with Jillian pwning Stanley and his dwagons was foolamancy. So Stanley is at least as powerful as Ceasar.

By the way: Stanley rides a big, red dwagon and is heading to a volcano. Maybe he gets some fire-resistance bonus from his mount, and can enter the still glowing crater and get the arkentool.

HandofShadows
2009-04-06, 07:33 AM
And yet Stanley laid the smackdown on Cesar and all of his bats in one hit. What does that say about how powerful Stanley (with the hammer) is, compared to Cesar?

Stanley is useing an (Thunderouse voice ON)Artifact of the Titans(Thunderouse voice OFF). That makes him likely the stongest single unit on the field other than someone else also with and Arkentool. Caeser just was not stong enough to stop Stanley. But Caeser is still alive after that attack which shows he is very tough.



Except that Don King seems to respect Vinny's opinion quite a bit. That must have some major pull. Plus Vinny's a noble - he just doesn't lay it out like Ansom did.

No doubt Vinny has some pull and is a noble. But a lot of his "pull" is not rank though. It's good honest advice. He is trusted/respected by the Don (and was by Ansom as well). But that's not rank/authority. Ceaser is Vinny's boss and will make the final decision.

Midnight Roamer
2009-04-06, 08:00 AM
You could just select someones post and paste it into your reply box, then wrap some quote tags around the thing, instead of, you know, spamming an entire bloody page.

To be fair, those single large posts with multiple quotes make me want to skip them, especially if they are quoting large other posts with text walls, so I try to avoid posting them.

Killer Angel
2009-04-06, 08:12 AM
No doubt Vinny has some pull and is a noble. But a lot of his "pull" is not rank though. It's good honest advice. He is trusted/respected by the Don (and was by Ansom as well). But that's not rank/authority. Ceaser is Vinny's boss and will make the final decision.

I agree; probably it was a combination of a lot of elements.
Vinnie has an high rank, given the fact that he was the commander of Transylvito's troops in the Coalition. He's a noble and was a good friend of Ansom, so there were also a political reason behind his choice.
But the high rank is confirmed by the fact that Vinnie's strong (remember the fight with the dragons? yes, they were wounded, but V. has done very well) and, most af all, he's very good in strategy and tactics.

From a straight power point, he certainly cannot match Caesar.

fendrin
2009-04-06, 08:50 AM
Barbarian.

I repeat..

Thog anger easy. Thog like hit things. Whackety whack hack slash crush.

Wrong kind of Barbarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbarian).
Unlike OotS, Erfworld is not based off of D&D. The wider (or should I say actual?) definition applies.


Jon brings to mind a problem that I've been having since I joined these forums. Just how do you respond to 15 different quotes in one post? :smalleek: I always have to cut and paste.

Yup, cut and paste. I use Firefox's tabbed browsing. I open each "quote" page into a new tab. I write my responses, then copy and paste them all together.


No doubt Vinny has some pull and is a noble. But a lot of his "pull" is not rank though. It's good honest advice. He is trusted/respected by the Don (and was by Ansom as well). But that's not rank/authority. Ceaser is Vinny's boss and will make the final decision.

I'm thinking that Vinny was some sort of ambassador to Jetstone.

Other than that, all I can figure is that he's just one of Transylvito's many warlords, and just happened to be the one sent as a token contribution to the coalition. But then why is Vinny's word good enough to spend a bunch of money and send 10 warlords to fight Stanley (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0111.html)?

HandofShadows
2009-04-06, 10:00 AM
Wrong kind of Other than that, all I can figure is that he's just one of Transylvito's many warlords, and just happened to be the one sent as a token contribution to the coalition. But then why is Vinny's word good enough to spend a bunch of money and send 10 warlords to fight Stanley (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0111.html)?

Well, Caeaser wasn't really THERE to fight Stanley. He wanted to find about about Faq annd Jillian's story that there was a hidden Capital site nearby. So the forces was not sent out on Vinny's word.
But as I said Vinny's power is not so much direct authority but about giving good solid honest advice. He is trusted by the Don for that. Caeser on the other hand is a higher ranking, more powerful warlord, but clearly not so smart. An heir maybe? You would need someone with a LOT of authority to set up a new city in Faq. Whatever rank he is, it's clearly above Vinny's rank.

sabremeister
2009-04-06, 10:09 AM
Because Supernatural comes from our world, where magic is inherently supernatural.
Untrue.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke

"Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology." - Larry Niven.

"Any technology, no matter how primitive, is magic to those who do not understand it." - Mark Stanley

Incorrect.

None of those quotes means that magic is technology. They are all perspective-based quotes.

#1 means that if, for example, someone invented a device that could literally create a live pigeon from nothing, it would appear to be magic (until the designs were published, anyway, at which point it would cease to appear to be magic).

#2 explains how JK Rowling's wizards have things like radios and trains. The magic they use is highly advanced enough to appear to work exactly like technology non-wizards are familiar with.

#3 is simply another way of explaining why the Aztecs treated the Conquistadors like gods - to them the Spaniards' flintlock muskets, horses, and steel breastplates would have seemed impossible, and the users of them must be powerful magicians. Just as Cortez would sink to his knees in fear and worship if a modern-day commando team appeared in their helicopter and kevlar armour and proceeded to machine-gun down all his men.


mag⋅ic
   /ˈmćdʒɪk/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [maj-ik] Show IPA
–noun
1. the art of producing illusions as entertainment by the use of sleight of hand, deceptive devices, etc.; legerdemain; conjuring: to pull a rabbit out of a hat by magic.
2. the art of producing a desired effect or result through the use of incantation or various other techniques that presumably assure human control of supernatural agencies or the forces of nature. Compare contagious magic, imitative magic, sympathetic magic.
3. the use of this art: Magic, it was believed, could drive illness from the body.
4. the effects produced: the magic of recovery.
5. power or influence exerted through this art: a wizard of great magic.
6. any extraordinary or mystical influence, charm, power, etc.: the magic in a great name; the magic of music; the magic of spring.
7. (initial capital letter) the U.S. code name for information from decrypting machine-enciphered Japanese wireless messages before and during World War II.
–adjective
8. employed in magic: magic spells; magic dances; magic rites.
9. mysteriously enchanting; magical: magic beauty.
10. of, pertaining to, or due to magic.
11. producing the effects of magic; magical: a magic touch.
Origin:
1350–1400; ME magik(e) witchcraft < LL magica, L magicē < Gk magik, n. use of fem. of magikós. See magus, -ic

Synonyms:
2. enchantment. Magic, necromancy, sorcery, witchcraft imply producing results through mysterious influences or unexplained powers. Magic may have glamorous and attractive connotations; the other terms suggest the harmful and sinister. Magic is an art employing some occult force of nature: A hundred years ago television would have seemed to be magic. Necromancy is an art of prediction based on alleged communication with the dead (it is called “the black art,” because Greek nekrós, dead, was confused with Latin *****, black): Necromancy led to violating graves. Sorcery, originally divination by casting lots, came to mean supernatural knowledge gained through the aid of evil spirits, and often used for evil ends: spells and charms used in sorcery. Witchcraft esp. suggests a malign kind of magic, often used against innocent victims: Those accused of witchcraft were executed.
From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/magic

And about Caesar's threat to drink Jillian's blood - maybe "drink blood" is the Transylvito warlord unit's Special Attack that drains HP.

Midnight Roamer
2009-04-06, 10:22 AM
Incorrect.

None of those quotes means that magic is technology. They are all perspective-based quotes.

#1 means that if, for example, someone invented a device that could literally create a live pigeon from nothing, it would appear to be magic (until the designs were published, anyway, at which point it would cease to appear to be magic).

#2 explains how JK Rowling's wizards have things like radios and trains. The magic they use is highly advanced enough to appear to work exactly like technology non-wizards are familiar with.

#3 is simply another way of explaining why the Aztecs treated the Conquistadors like gods - to them the Spaniards' flintlock muskets, horses, and steel breastplates would have seemed impossible, and the users of them must be powerful magicians. Just as Cortez would sink to his knees in fear and worship if a modern-day commando team appeared in their helicopter and kevlar armour and proceeded to machine-gun down all his men.


From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/magic

And about Caesar's threat to drink Jillian's blood - maybe "drink blood" is the Transylvito warlord unit's Special Attack that drains HP.

I'm not sure what you're stating as 'incorrect' here. The above quotes were used as a counter to the argument that magic is supernatural. The quotes were featured as a statement that in some cases, technology and magic may be confused, and we certainly don't associate technology with the supernatural. I didn't read any statement anywhere that indicates anyone was trying to say magic and technology were the exact same thing.
The definitions that you posted with your reply prove that not all magic is defined in supernatural terms, so I'm wondering what you're really saying. Are you saying that magic is supernatural or not? If you're disagreeing with something else, perhaps that should preface your statements rather than simply opening with the word 'incorrect'.

fendrin
2009-04-06, 10:48 AM
Well, Caeaser wasn't really THERE to fight Stanley. He wanted to find about about Faq annd Jillian's story that there was a hidden Capital site nearby. So the forces was not sent out on Vinny's word.
But as I said Vinny's power is not so much direct authority but about giving good solid honest advice. He is trusted by the Don for that. Caeser on the other hand is a higher ranking, more powerful warlord, but clearly not so smart. An heir maybe? You would need someone with a LOT of authority to set up a new city in Faq. Whatever rank he is, it's clearly above Vinny's rank.

Ah, but the decision the Don made to send those warlords apparently preceded Caesar's decision to check out Faq.

Interesting note: Caesar refers to Vinny as 'Count' in panel 7. We have yet to hear Caesar be referred to as being nobility. I'm wondering if maybe he's not. We already know that nobility is not as important to Vinny as it is to Ansom, it may be that TV as a whole puts more import on effectiveness than on nobility.

Of course, maybe he's just using the title to remind Vinny who's in charge.

Either way, Caesar is definitely more powerful and in charge. I think he might be older too.

Midnight Roamer
2009-04-06, 11:03 AM
Ah, but the decision the Don made to send those warlords apparently preceded Caesar's decision to check out Faq.

Interesting note: Caesar refers to Vinny as 'Count' in panel 7. We have yet to hear Caesar be referred to as being nobility. I'm wondering if maybe he's not. We already know that nobility is not as important to Vinny as it is to Ansom, it may be that TV as a whole puts more import on effectiveness than on nobility.

Of course, maybe he's just using the title to remind Vinny who's in charge.

Either way, Caesar is definitely more powerful and in charge. I think he might be older too.

Well, nowadays Caesar is a name (heck, so is King), but the Romans and Ottoman Turks actually used it as a title (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesar_(title)). Heck, even the Russians used a modified version of Caesar (Czar) to refer to their rulers prior to the revolution. I'm not sure if that is the case here, but I'm not the only one to note the interesting blend of vampire and greaser-era Italian prominent in the TV's.

BLANDCorporatio
2009-04-06, 11:10 AM
Way back when, there was a guy named Cesare Borgia. I might misspell the name, but the point is clear. Incidentally, he was the guy that Machiavelli based 'Il Principe' on.

Lunaya
2009-04-06, 11:12 AM
If I knew how to quote multiple posts in one post, I wouldn't have done this :smallsmile:
Exactly! I feel your pain, my friend. :smalltongue:

As far as the Vinny debate goes, I'd say he reminds me more of Vinny Gambini than Vinny Delpino. Nothing gets by either one of them.

fendrin
2009-04-06, 11:52 AM
Well, nowadays Caesar is a name (heck, so is King), but the Romans and Ottoman Turks actually used it as a title (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesar_(title)). Heck, even the Russians used a modified version of Caesar (Czar) to refer to their rulers prior to the revolution. I'm not sure if that is the case here, but I'm not the only one to note the interesting blend of vampire and greaser-era Italian prominent in the TV's.

Yes, I am familiar with Caesar/Kaiser/Czar as a title. It actually started as a name, though. Julius Caesar, though laying the groundwork of the roman empire was only a dictator, not an emperor.

No, Caesar is pretty clearly his name. Vinny does refer to him as 'Chief' (no doubt short for 'Chief warlord'), so that would seem to be his dominant title. That could imply that Caesar is not Don King's heir (as one would expect the dominant title then to be 'Prince').

sabremeister
2009-04-06, 12:14 PM
I'm not sure what you're stating as 'incorrect' here. The above quotes were used as a counter to the argument that magic is supernatural. The quotes were featured as a statement that in some cases, technology and magic may be confused, and we certainly don't associate technology with the supernatural. I didn't read any statement anywhere that indicates anyone was trying to say magic and technology were the exact same thing.
The definitions that you posted with your reply prove that not all magic is defined in supernatural terms, so I'm wondering what you're really saying. Are you saying that magic is supernatural or not? If you're disagreeing with something else, perhaps that should preface your statements rather than simply opening with the word 'incorrect'.

I was replying to Jon Pander, when he responded to Kreistor's statement that "magic is inherently supernatural" with the word "untrue", then went on to quote a scientist/inventor/author, another author, and a webcomic artist.

All they say is that sometimes magic and technology can be confused, but Jon seemed to use them in a context that suggested that magic in our world is not always supernatural - which is incorrect. Magic, by its' definition, is in our world supernatural, whether it seems so or not.

Perhaps you should read things more carefully, and remember that the forums snip all but the most recent level of context when quoting.



No, Caesar is pretty clearly his name. Vinny does refer to him as 'Chief' (no doubt short for 'Chief warlord'), so that would seem to be his dominant title. That could imply that Caesar is not Don King's heir (as one would expect the dominant title then to be 'Prince').

Also, "Don" is roughly equivalent to "Duke". If the ruler of Transylvito is a Duke, then his heir would be a Count. It doesn't anywhere that a Chief Warlord has to be the heir, it just appears to be the most common situation.

Midnight Roamer
2009-04-06, 12:25 PM
I was replying to Jon Pander, when he responded to Kreistor's statement that "magic is inherently supernatural" with the word "untrue", then went on to quote a scientist/inventor/author, another author, and a webcomic artist.

All they say is that sometimes magic and technology can be confused, but Jon seemed to use them in a context that suggested that magic in our world is not always supernatural - which is incorrect. Magic, by its' definition, is in our world supernatural, whether it seems so or not.

Perhaps you should read things more carefully, and remember that the forums snip all but the most recent level of context when quoting.

But your definitions of magic included stage magic, a decrypting machine, and magical beauty, which are not supernatural, thus your own source proves you wrong.
The nature of magic IS "perspective based" as you mention regarding a previous poster's quotes. You pretty much have to choose a definition of magic as "a supernatural way of ...blah blah" in order to state that magic is supernatural in nature. In reference to the earlier posts, vampires can be supernatural in comparison to other Erfworlders, if we define supernatural to mean "beyond the ordinary". They certainly do seem to be stronger than standard infantry, but we haven't seen much in the way of line troops from them either, unless the bats are it. To me, there is no "natural" in Erfworld, so it would be a poor point of comparison.

Edit: Reread the whole line of posts, trimmed the fat, etc.

Gez
2009-04-06, 12:49 PM
Untrue.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke

"Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology." - Larry Niven.

"Any technology, no matter how primitive, is magic to those who do not understand it." - Mark Stanley

My favorite version is this one:
"Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced." -- Barry Gehm.

Jon Pander
2009-04-06, 01:19 PM
You could just select someones post and paste it into your reply box, then wrap some quote tags around the thing, instead of, you know, spamming an entire bloody page.

1) I have no idea what you just said.
2) In erfworld forum, there is no bloody. Remember?

fendrin
2009-04-06, 01:32 PM
Also, "Don" is roughly equivalent to "Duke". If the ruler of Transylvito is a Duke, then his heir would be a Count. It doesn't anywhere that a Chief Warlord has to be the heir, it just appears to be the most common situation.

Interesting... So maybe Vinny is the heir. On the other hand, Caesar refers to Don King as 'the King', so 'Don' again might be just a name...

I will dispute that the Chief Warlord being the heir is 'the most common' situation. That is the case for Jetstone, it was the case at Faq; it has not been the case in a while at GK (and even then Sizemore portrays Stanley's ascension to 'Heir' as unusual, but not his rise from Warlord to Chief Warlord), and we don't know whether or not it is the case with anyone else.

It seems just as likely to me that Ansom and Jillian, by the nature of their privileged status (e.g. Royalty), advanced more rapidly than the other warlords(Nobility, not Royalty) and thus became the best person for the job.

Jon Pander
2009-04-06, 01:33 PM
That didn't really happen, it was the illusion created by the foolamancer.

Actually no, that part happened BEFORE the foolamancy occured. Look at the background - no 'large group of bats' in the background until later in the comic.

Plus seriously - Cesar did not get hit by an illusion. He got iht by something that was electrical. From what I've seen, dwagons do fire damage - only the hammer has been shown to do lightning. Even assuming that Cesar was attacking an illusion (which it seems clear was not the case at that point in the comic), the lightning was not an illusion and walloped him and ALL his bats at the same time

Jon Pander
2009-04-06, 01:41 PM
No doubt Vinny has some pull and is a noble. But a lot of his "pull" is not rank though. It's good honest advice. He is trusted/respected by the Don (and was by Ansom as well). But that's not rank/authority. Ceaser is Vinny's boss and will make the final decision.

Cesar seems to be ranked high only because he's tough. Vinny seems to be the smart, strategic one. And in war, as we've seen with Parson, the smart one often wins.

Patton didn't win fights because he was an unstoppable killing machine- he won because his strategy was superior to his opponent's.

The Don seems like the type of person who respects brains over simply brawn, so I wouldn't be surprised if he'd back Vinny's opinion over Cesar's when it comes to strategic alliances.

fendrin
2009-04-06, 01:42 PM
From what I've seen, dwagons do fire damage Look closer, you will see that dwagons have a variety of breath weapons, similar to in D&D. Reds breath fire, pinks spit bubblegum, purple seems to have a sonic attack...

In D&D blue dragons breathe lightning. I'm not sure whether we have seen a blue dwagon's breath attack yet.

EDIT:
Cesar seems to be ranked high only because he's tough.
The Don seems like the type of person who respects brains over simply brawn...

These are both very large assumptions; we don't know nearly enough about Don King to understand his motivations for selecting a Chief Warlord or to predict his future actions.

Jon Pander
2009-04-06, 01:43 PM
From a straight power point, he certainly cannot match Caesar.

Fortunately the Erfworld mechanics are more like Age of Empires and less like Pokemon Battle Royale

Jon Pander
2009-04-06, 01:53 PM
Incorrect.

None of those quotes means that magic is technology. They are all perspective-based quotes.
Magic is technology.

There. Happy?

Reality is always a matter of perspective. When you know how a trick happens, it's no longer magic. When you don't know, it is magic.

Heck, watch Stargate SG-1. It's full of that form of thinking.
Watch Star Trek TNG. Picard has an entire speech about that with the proto-vulcans who think he's a god.
Play the game Mage the Ascension, where it's claimed that magic is a force of will over reality, and by making people believe a certain reality, you change reality. Mages just have a better understanding of how to do this than normal people, while Technology is repeatable magic which anyone can do because people EXPECT it to work.

I win.


#1 means that if, for example, someone invented a device that could literally create a live pigeon from nothing, it would appear to be magic (until the designs were published, anyway, at which point it would cease to appear to be magic).
It would still be magic. Just magic which anyone can do.


#2 explains how JK Rowling's wizards have things like radios and trains. The magic they use is highly advanced enough to appear to work exactly like technology non-wizards are familiar with.
Putting aside the fact that I hate Harry Potter, the wizards in those books are so stupid that they don't know how to use basic technology. To them, basic technology is as magical as their magic is to muggles. It's stated right in the series of books that you're referencing.



#3 is simply another way of explaining why the Aztecs treated the Conquistadors like gods - to them the Spaniards' flintlock muskets, horses, and steel breastplates would have seemed impossible, and the users of them must be powerful magicians. Just as Cortez would sink to his knees in fear and worship if a modern-day commando team appeared in their helicopter and kevlar armour and proceeded to machine-gun down all his men.
"For what is a god but someone who has a greater understanding of the universe and how it works?" - The Doci from Stargate SG-1, season 9.

The Conquisators might as well be considered gods to the Aztecs, and cannons are magic that the Conquistadors understand while the Aztecs did not.


And about Caesar's threat to drink Jillian's blood - maybe "drink blood" is the Transylvito warlord unit's Special Attack that drains HP.

Then he would have said 'I'll drain your HP' - it's not like other erfworlders have been loathe to use game terms in their world. 'Pop,' 'the twoll levelled,' 'units have no move,' etc.

Occam's razor dictates the most obvious answer is the correct one. He said blood. So erfworlders bleed. Cesar isn't using the word in some metaphorical sense. I doubt he knows what metaphorical means even.

Jon Pander
2009-04-06, 01:56 PM
The above quotes were used as a counter to the argument that magic is supernatural.

Yep, exactly what I was saying. :) Magic is not necessarily supernatural. It's just something others don't understand yet, and I was just using those quotes to back up that frame of thinking.


The quotes were featured as a statement that in some cases, technology and magic may be confused, and we certainly don't associate technology with the supernatural.
Though to people without technology, it might seem to be because they don't know about it.


If you're disagreeing with something else, perhaps that should preface your statements rather than simply opening with the word 'incorrect'.

Correct!:smallsmile:

Jon Pander
2009-04-06, 02:03 PM
Exactly! I feel your pain, my friend. :smalltongue:

As far as the Vinny debate goes, I'd say he reminds me more of Vinny Gambini than Vinny Delpino. Nothing gets by either one of them.

Maybe him and Ansom were cousins? :)

Vinny's too smart to be Delphino anyway. Vinny Delphino was an idiot in the show. At least Vinny Gambini had some actual smarts.

Jon Pander
2009-04-06, 02:21 PM
Look closer, you will see that dwagons have a variety of breath weapons, similar to in D&D. Reds breath fire, pinks spit bubblegum, purple seems to have a sonic attack...
I probably wasn't paying attention, but when have pinks spit bubblegum and purples used sonic attacks?


In D&D blue dragons breathe lightning. I'm not sure whether we have seen a blue dwagon's breath attack yet.
You might be right - I don't play D&D - but until I see that blue dwagons can breathe multiple lighting strike breath, I'm assuming that it was done by Stanley, as per Occam's Razor.


we don't know nearly enough about Don King to understand his motivations for selecting a Chief Warlord or to predict his future actions.
We know that he's a simple man, and makes simple decisions.
Strongest fighter means best bonus, which (under normal circumstances) is the best thing for a chief warlord to have.
So it would make sense that you'd make your chief warlord your strongest fighter, not necessarily your smartest fighter.

But yeah, he -could- be any reason - this is just the most obvious one.

fendrin
2009-04-06, 02:22 PM
Occam's razor dictates the most obvious answer is the correct one. He said blood. So erfworlders bleed. Cesar isn't using the word in some metaphorical sense. I doubt he knows what metaphorical means even.

Ockham's Razor dictates nothing. William must be turning in his grave over how many people misuse his thinking.

Ockham's Razor is a concept in metaphysics that essentially states that one should not postulate the existence of entities without sufficient reason for doing so.


For nothing ought to be posited without a reason given, unless it is self-evident or known by experience or proved by the authority of Sacred Scripture.

To learn more, check out the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on William of Ockham (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ockham/).

Even if we were to extend the principle outside the realm of metaphysics, it cannot be used to deny any option. It is at most a rule of thumb for the creation of ideas, not a tool for deciding between them.

EDIT:
when have pinks spit bubblegum and purples used sonic attacks?


You might be right - I don't play D&D - but until I see that blue dwagons can breathe multiple lighting strike breath, I'm assuming that it was done by Stanley, as per Occam's Razor.
Panel 7 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0031.html):
browns exhale a dark cloud
reds breathe fire
yellows drop turd bombs
pinks shoot bubblegum (seen in action here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0063.html))
blues spit multiple lightning bolts
Purple's sonic attack (panel 8) (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0087.html)

On the other hand I still think Stanley's attack was real.


We know that he's a simple man, and makes simple decisions.
Strongest fighter means best bonus, which (under normal circumstances) is the best thing for a chief warlord to have.
So it would make sense that you'd make your chief warlord your strongest fighter, not necessarily your smartest fighter.

But yeah, he -could- be any reason - this is just the most obvious one. Don King says he is a simple man. That doesn't mean he is one. Also, you want a chief warlord with the highest possible leadership, not combat ability.

Jon Pander
2009-04-06, 02:30 PM
Ockham's Razor dictates nothing. William must be turning in his grave over how many people misuse his thinking.

Ockham's Razor is a concept in metaphysics that essentially states that one should not postulate the existence of entities without sufficient reason for doing so.

Sort of like assuming that blue dwagons breathe lightning in an area effect when they have no reason to assume so? :)

You're misusing the term then telling others they are misusing the term.

To explain simply:
We've never seen dwagons use lightning bweath... I mean breath.

I therefore refuse to postulate the existence of an entity such as a lightning-breathing dwagon. Something you are arguing in favor of. There is no sufficient reason to do so, since there have been no examples of it shown in Erfworld as of yet.

There -has- been examples of the Arkenhammer causing lightning, however (multiple times in the comic, and references in the Cast Page. The picture does show the arkenhammer being used to attack Cesar with lightning (and all his bats, all around him, including behind him (and behind where a dwagon could breathe, uniless they fart lightning as well - another unwarranted assumption if you were to make it)

Therefore, since Ockham's Razor says to not postulate things which have not been proven to exist, we may only use things which HAVE been proven to exist.

Ergo, the hammer did it, as per the teachings of Ockham's Razor.

I win, just go with it. :)

Jon Pander
2009-04-06, 02:45 PM
Ockham's Razor dictates nothing. William must be turning in his grave over how many people misuse his thinking.

Oh and on the topic of Cesar saying blood meaning that blood exists...

The only one who seems to have extra-erfly knowledge is Parson.

Which is more likely, that Cesar is making up a word which describes something which does not exist in Erfworld, or he's using a word which does describe something in Erfworld?

You said that "Ockham's Razor states one should not postulate the existence of entities without sufficient reason for doing so."

So is Cesar defying Ockham's razor? If blood does not exist in Erf, then he's postulating the existence of an entity (blood) without sufficient reasons for doing so.

Also, the inverse reasoning of Ockham's razor is that, if you should not postiulate the existence of an entity without sufficient reasons for doing so, then those entities which do exist become more likely than the reasons which do not exist.

Blood exists because Cesar has referenced it by saying the word 'blood'. He would not use the word if it was not a noun that refers to something. It's not even a stretch of the imagination to make that leap of logic. Plus Cesar seems to be the type of guy who says what he means. He's said what he means every other time we've seen him, and never used any sort of 'subtlety' in his language. Don't take my word for it - read any page which has him saying -anything- in it. He doesn't seem to ever say anything except what he's thinking, no matter how tactless.

You Chickie sack-of-bats, you!

fendrin
2009-04-06, 02:50 PM
Sort of like assuming that blue dwagons breathe lightning in an area effect when they have no reason to assume so? :)

You're misusing the term then telling others they are misusing the term.

To explain simply:
We've never seen dwagons use lightning bweath... I mean breath.

I therefore refuse to postulate the existence of an entity such as a lightning-breathing dwagon. Something you are arguing in favor of. There is no sufficient reason to do so, since there have been no examples of it shown in Erfworld as of yet.

There -has- been examples of the Arkenhammer causing lightning, however (multiple times in the comic, and references in the Cast Page. The picture does show the arkenhammer being used to attack Cesar with lightning (and all his bats, all around him, including behind him (and behind where a dwagon could breathe, uniless they fart lightning as well - another unwarranted assumption if you were to make it)

Therefore, since Ockham's Razor says to not postulate things which have not been proven to exist, we may only use things which HAVE been proven to exist.

Ergo, the hammer did it, as per the teachings of Ockham's Razor.

I win, just go with it. :)

See my edit to my previous post(concurrent posting can be such a pain), and beware hubris. Your research inadequacies do not make you look smart.
Oh, and you still are using Ockham's razor incorrectly (I didn't use it at all, just defined it, thus I cannot have misused it). Ockham's Razor is actually very weak, one can postulate anything one has 'sufficient' reason for; 'sufficient' is not defined. Therefore any reason qualifies.

EDIT:
Oh and on the topic of Cesar saying blood meaning that blood exists...

The only one who seems to have extra-erfly knowledge is Parson.

Which is more likely, that Cesar is making up a word which describes something which does not exist in Erfworld, or he's using a word which does describe something in Erfworld? The latter is more likely than the former, but the latter is no more likely than Caesar using a societally common metaphoric expression.


You said that "Ockham's Razor states one should not postulate the existence of entities without sufficient reason for doing so."

So is Cesar defying Ockham's razor? If blood does not exist in Erf, then he's postulating the existence of an entity (blood) without sufficient reasons for doing so.
Ockham's razor cannot be 'defied'. It can be ignored. It can be inapplicable. I seriously doubt Caesar is postulating anything, therefore it is completely inapplicable.


Also, the inverse reasoning of Ockham's razor is that, if you should not postiulate the existence of an entity without sufficient reasons for doing so, then those entities which do exist become more likely than the reasons which do not exist. Eh, what? That is nonsensical. Something that does exist is (depending on your perspective) is either incapable of being compared on the basis of likelihood or infinitely more likely than something that may or may not exist. The existence of reasons has no direct relevance to the existence of the object which is the subject of the reasons... one cannot compare the two.


Blood exists because Cesar has referenced it by saying the word 'blood'. He would not use the word if it was not a noun that refers to something. It's not even a stretch of the imagination to make that leap of logic. So if I say 'I saw a ghost' then ghosts exist?
How about this: does the statement 'Unicorns don't exist' make unicorns exist, therfore making itself self-contradictory? That leap of logic is like trying to leap the grand canyon; it's going nowhere but down.


Plus Cesar seems to be the type of guy who says what he means. He's said what he means every other time we've seen him, and never used any sort of 'subtlety' in his language. Don't take my word for it - read any page which has him saying -anything- in it. He doesn't seem to ever say anything except what he's thinking, no matter how tactless. The use of common metaphors is not at all contradictory to being plain-spoken. If that is a common idiomatic threat in the culture of transylvito, Caesar could be using it without even considering that it might not make any sense literally. Compare it to someone saying someone is 'hot'. It is unlikely that the person being referred to deviates significantly from average human temperature, and thus the idiom has no literal truthfulness. Does that mean it is not used by unsubtle people?


You Chickie sack-of-bats, you!
Please do not be insulting. It is not appreciated, lowers other's opinions of you, and violates the forum rules.

Kreistor
2009-04-06, 03:38 PM
Btw, gotta also correct you on something though it has no effect on the Erfworld storyline.

Magma under Yellowstone -is- creating pressure. The land has raised several feet over the last few years even from that pressure. Eventually it'll erupt like it has several times in the past

I beleive I referenced that movement, and even provided an image of the last 5 eruption positions.

That magma is creating pressure right now, but it hadn't for millenia. If the pressure created even a 1" per year rise, over 60000 years, that's 3000 ft of rise. Yellowstone isn't 3000 feet above surrounded territory. The pressure has increased recently, and we even had a close call a decade ago, but that's a recent change. For 10s of thousands of years, there was no pressure and no land rise.



Untrue.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke

"Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology." - Larry Niven.

"Any technology, no matter how primitive, is magic to those who do not understand it." - Mark Stanley

What is "magic" in our world? There are two definitions. One is "anything someone does that I can't explain." that's not the magic I'm talking about. I'm talking about a power source that is non-scientific, and cannot be explained using the Laws developed by science. That is the definition of Supernatural.

From Dictionary.com "the art of producing a desired effect or result through the use of incantation or various other techniques that presumably assure human control of supernatural agencies or the forces of nature." See the use of the word supernatural? Magic, the kind used in Erfworld, is inherently supernatural if used on Earth. It may not be considered supernatural by the peoples of Erfworld, wher emagic is a natural part of daily life, but here it is not. That's why here it is supernatural by definition.

Yes, someday someone could create a device that with a spoken word emits an energy beam, and it would look all the world like a magic spell. But the basis behind it would be the natural laws of this world.

By comparison, Parson's watch might be considered supernatural in Erfworld, if Parson tried to explain how it worked. In their world, quartz might not be able to produce a constant effect usable for timing the universe, for instance. That would make Science, our science, supernatural in Erfworld. What is supernatural, that is above what nature is capable of, is relative to the realities of the world that the events take place in.

Jon Pander
2009-04-06, 03:55 PM
See my edit to my previous post(concurrent posting can be such a pain), and beware hubris. Your research inadequacies do not make you look smart.
You sack-of-bats, you!


Oh, and you still are using Ockham's razor incorrectly (I didn't use it at all, just defined it, thus I cannot have misused it).
You defined it, I used it according to the definition you gave, and you said I misused it. Therefore you don't seem to have an idea of what Ockham's razor is other than cutting and pasting from a site. You lack the ability to apply it.


Ockham's Razor is actually very weak, one can postulate anything one has 'sufficient' reason for; 'sufficient' is not defined. Therefore any reason qualifies.
Sufficient = qualified; enough to meet a need or purpose; adequate [Latin sufficiens]

It does not mean 'any' reason. It means a qualified reason which adequately meets the purpose based on a given set of pre-existing facts known.

But if you want to also tell me that the oxford dictionary is incorrect you can feel free. I'm sure you're smarter than it as well.


So if I say 'I saw a ghost' then ghosts exist?
Obviously a significant portion of people must think they do, that you can not dismiss them saying so by saying that their saying 'my house is haunted by a ghost' is an allegory for something else, rather than them meaning that THEIR HOUSE IS FREAKING HAUNTED BY A GHOST!

I admit that most of the time, ghost hauntings are actually caused by old man witherby though. Scooby Doo has taught me that much.

[QUOTE=fendrin;5964396]How about this: does the statement 'Unicorns don't exist' make unicorns exist, therfore making itself self-contradictory?
Oy .... dude, he said he was going to drain her blood. Do you feel that it's more likely that she has blood to be drained, or that he's talking about a mythical fairy tail thing called blood?

Cmon now, don't you get that the most obvious answer is usually the correct one?

No... no I don't think you do.


The use of common metaphors is not at all contradictory to being plain-spoken. If that is a common idiomatic threat in the culture of transylvito, Caesar could be using it without even considering that it might not make any sense literally. Compare it to someone saying someone is 'hot'. It is unlikely that the person being referred to deviates significantly from average human temperature, and thus the idiom has no literal truthfulness. Does that mean it is not used by unsubtle people?
Your use of big words has obviously won me over.

Oh wait, no it hasn't.

Cesar doesn't seem to issue threats or make statements that don't mean exactly what he's saying. I'm trying to figure out how you interpret a story based on past actions by ignoring all past actions taken.



Please do not be insulting. It is not appreciated, lowers other's opinions of you, and violates the forum rules.

Oh my god.... remind me to not make any jokes around you. Your sense of humor seems to be more dead than Ansom after Bogroll fell on him.

I'll explain the joke, since you didn't get it.

Chickie and 'sack of bats were the two slang terms which Cesar used to describe Jillian. He doesn't like her. Btw.... in reference to the rather dumb use of the word 'hot'... please realize that while Cesar does not seem to be use metaphors in his threats, he does use slang as a way of putting Jillan in her place.

Or maybe I was, by your logic, using them metaphorically. Because I've been soooo metaphoric in my past comments :)

You sack-of-bats.

Jon Pander
2009-04-06, 04:16 PM
I beleive I referenced that movement, and even provided an image of the last 5 eruption positions.

Yeah I didn't read that post until after I posted mine. It was a cool epiisode.

Point I was making though is it's not really worth making a comparison in any case, since no one knows the physics in Erfworld that would explain stuff like flying carpets and dwagons, giant spiders (which would require an oxygen rich environment which hasn't been seen on earth since the Cretaceous period or so), and raising the dead.... to say nothing of plate tectonics.

So using anything abou yellowstone or any other sort of real life example of volcanos is going to fall short of explaining what happened, as all that is needed to explain it is:

A wizard did it. Which is according to the laws of nature in erf. Albeit a law of nature which was previously unheard of, due to Parson's extranatural thought process.


What is "magic" in our world? There are two definitions. One is "anything someone does that I can't explain." that's not the magic I'm talking about.
But it's still an accepted definition of magic. Both for 'stage' magic and real magic (whether it does or does not exist).
In any case, once you know how something works, does it make it no longer magic? Nah... it just makes you know how it works. To anyone else who doesn't know how it works, it's still magic (or might as well be).


I'm talking about a power source that is non-scientific, and cannot be explained using the Laws developed by science.
Assuming that there IS anything which can not be explained scientifically... eventually.


That is the definition of Supernatural.
But not necessarily the definition of magic.
Hence magic does not automatically mean 'supernatural.'


From Dictionary.com "the art of producing a desired effect or result through the use of incantation or various other techniques that presumably assure human control of supernatural agencies or the forces of nature." See the use of the word supernatural?
See the use of the word 'presumably'?


Magic, the kind used in Erfworld, is inherently supernatural if used on Earth.
Just you wait until I learn how to bring the dead back to life a la Victor Von Frankenstein, and invent a nanobot in my bloodstream to convert dirt to automotous beings! It's just a different type of science that we don't understand. Or it might just be different beacuse of the fact that physics in Erf are wonky. Sure, in our universe, you can't create or destroy matter or energy, just change it - but in the Erfverse that might not be the case with physics. So conceivably a human from earth, if they are in Erf, could learn how to do these things - as long as they remain in Erf because physics won't kick their butt there for doing it.


It may not be considered supernatural by the peoples of Erfworld, wher emagic is a natural part of daily life, but here it is not.
It is magic. It's just not supernatural. It's 'extranatural' in that it complies with a nature other than the ones which govern our universe. Nothing supernatural about it though. If our universe had the same laws of physics as Erf has, you can bet I'd be raising your ancestors from the dead while flying on a dragon holding a squeaky toy which creates lightning and turns you into a walnut.


But the basis behind it would be the natural laws of this world.
And the basis for magic in Erf is the natural laws of that world. Hence it's not supernatural.


By comparison, Parson's watch might be considered supernatural in Erfworld, if Parson tried to explain how it worked. In their world, quartz might not be able to produce a constant effect usable for timing the universe, for instance.
Part of me wants to actually agree with you about Parson's watch as being the only thing in Erf which should be considered 'supernatural'.

Part of me wants to argue that Parson's watch is a rare example of a item which is natural in either Parson's universe or the Erfverse, albeit for different reasons.


That would make Science, our science, supernatural in Erfworld.
Again... supernatural is something which defies the laws of nature.

The laws of nature in question are going to be for the universe in which the nature and effect is occuring. So in Erfworld, nothing is supernatural. Magic is not supernatural

In this world, magic is not supernatural because it's a perception based effect. It can easily be argued that any magical effect is simply deception or trickery or technology which has not been discovered or explained properly.

But this is all a moot point- the point was that in Erf, magic is not supernatural. Vampires drinking blood in erf is not supernatural.
THinkamancy is not supernatural. Foolamancy is not supernatural. Archons are not supernatural. Giant sentient marshmellow peeps are not supernatural.
Because the laws of nature in erf support their existence. They are natural in that nature allows them to exist.

Jon Pander
2009-04-06, 04:18 PM
Cool beans, how did I post to two people in one post??

Jon Pander
2009-04-06, 04:25 PM
Btw, Fedrin, I used my own incredibly google and cut-and-paste skills to find this tidbit from someone who has probably done a lot more research about Ockham than either of us.

William Ockham (c. 1285–1349) is remembered as an influential nominalist but his popular fame as a great logician rests chiefly on the maxim attributed to him and known as Occam's razor: Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem or "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily." The term razor refers to the act of shaving away unnecessary assumptions to get to the simplest explanation. No doubt this maxim represents correctly the general tendency of his philosophy, but it has not so far been found in any of his writings. His nearest pronouncement seems to be Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate [Plurality must never be posited without necessity], which occurs in his theological work on the Sentences of Peter Lombard (Quaestiones et decisiones in quattuor libros Sententiarum Petri Lombardi (ed. Lugd., 1495), i, dist. 27, qu. 2, K). In his Summa Totius Logicae, i. 12, Ockham cites the principle of economy, Frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora [It is futile to do with more things that which can be done with fewer]. —Thorburn, 1918, pp. 352-3; Kneale and Kneale, 1962, p. 243.[3]

I direct you to the second word of Ockham's razor - 'shaving away unnecessary assumptions to get at the simplest explanation.'

Please again tell me how I don't understand and I'm misusing Ockham's razor. Thorburn will be interested to know as well. I mean... he's dead but i'm sure he'll be interested.

I'm using the simplest assumption. You're using one which is rather convoluted. Simplest solution usually wins in a debate invoking the term 'Ockham's razor.'

My cut and paste kung fu is strong. Yours is weak.

Midnight Roamer
2009-04-06, 04:32 PM
What is "magic" in our world? There are two definitions. One is "anything someone does that I can't explain." that's not the magic I'm talking about. I'm talking about a power source that is non-scientific, and cannot be explained using the Laws developed by science. That is the definition of Supernatural.

From Dictionary.com "the art of producing a desired effect or result through the use of incantation or various other techniques that presumably assure human control of supernatural agencies or the forces of nature." See the use of the word supernatural? Magic, the kind used in Erfworld, is inherently supernatural if used on Earth. It may not be considered supernatural by the peoples of Erfworld, wher emagic is a natural part of daily life, but here it is not. That's why here it is supernatural by definition.

What you had stated initially was NOT that if Erfworld magic were brought here, it would be considered supernatural, you had stated:


Because Supernatural comes from our world, where magic is inherently supernatural.

Two propositions are here:
Supernatural comes from our world--so you're saying that the idea of things being supernatural comes from our world and not from a world in which marshmallow peeps have a high flying movement score. Okay, I can accept that.

Magic is inherently supernatural (in our world)--this proposition depends upon context, especially cultural context, locale, language, and numerous other factors. The only way it can be true is to narrowly define what we mean by magic, which you haven't done til here:


I'm talking about a power source that is non-scientific, and cannot be explained using the Laws developed by science.

Unfortunately, it's like four pages later in the discussion and boils down to a statement that "supernatural magic is supernatural in nature". In addressing the vampire issue, the original issue, what is it that you are really saying?

fractal
2009-04-06, 04:38 PM
Panel 7 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0031.html):
browns exhale a dark cloud
reds breathe fire
yellows drop turd bombs
pinks shoot bubblegum (seen in action here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0063.html))
blues spit multiple lightning bolts
Purple's sonic attack (panel 8) (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0087.html)
You forgot to mention that Greens breathe a blast of wind:
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0056.html

chefsotero
2009-04-06, 05:05 PM
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem or "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily." The term razor refers to the act of shaving away unnecessary assumptions to get to the simplest explanation. No doubt this maxim represents correctly the general tendency of his philosophy, but it has not so far been found in any of his writings. His nearest pronouncement seems to be Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate [Plurality must never be posited without necessity]

But Occhan's Razor is a rule of thumb. Pehapps the McDaddy of the Rules of thumb, but still

Given two models that describe the same effect we should pick the simpliest one. And hey that was a great thing in the Heliocentric x Ptolemaic models.

The problem is that it is no final proof. Einsten's cosmological constant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant) looked like the simpliest model until Hubble came along.

So one can never use the razor proof of anything, just as likelyhood, everytime I use it I try (with or without success) to make it clear that with two unproven models I pick the simpliest one, and thats just because I like to do so and given that any theory we make here is based on an fiction that will be as consistent as the author can or want to make it, until he writes that something is someway anything is fair game. And even after that too (retcom is a word for a reason u know).

Gez
2009-04-06, 05:38 PM
Cool beans, how did I post to two people in one post??

And why did you feel the need to offset this by making a post?


My cut and paste kung fu is strong.

Why don't we get to see it in action, then?

Jon Pander
2009-04-06, 05:41 PM
You forgot to mention that Greens breathe a blast of wind:
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0056.html

Well... while not multiple, you have proven your point that it's 'conceivable' that it could be foolamancy, though I doubt it since Jack did not regain his 'compos' until several panels after the Van De Graaf.

Still... nice eye on the call. Impressed am I.

Jon Pander
2009-04-06, 06:25 PM
{Scrubbed}

dr pepper
2009-04-06, 06:27 PM
Way back when, there was a guy named Cesare Borgia. I might misspell the name, but the point is clear. Incidentally, he was the guy that Machiavelli based 'Il Principe' on.

Yeah, i mentioned him back when Caesar first appeared. But someone else imformed me that it was a more complex reference than that because "Caesar" and "Borgata" are the names of two casinos.

Justyn
2009-04-06, 06:36 PM
It was Cash Cab. I don't know if there's an American version: this one's from Toronto.

It's a little late, but yes, there is an American version: it's set in New York City.


We've never seen dwagons use lightning bweath... I mean breath.

Yes, we have. Take a look at the blue dwagon in panel five on the linked page (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0031.html). It also shows red, brown, pink and yellow dwagons using their breath weapons (okay, the yellow's isn't a "breath" weapon.) Purples are shown using their sonic attack here (panel 8) (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0087.html), and greens are shown using their gas breath in panel 10 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0056.html).

Goshen
2009-04-06, 08:13 PM
Just saw this, finally. Great page.

Okay, that does it. People can go on about how hot Wanda is and the Fox-mud redhead. My crush is on Vinnie.

Fjolnir
2009-04-06, 08:41 PM
ok, we know crap exists in erfworld, and we know that most biological units perform this action I doubt the ball of crap from the yellow dragon's rear end is it's special weapon...

Kreistor
2009-04-06, 08:45 PM
Two propositions are here:
Supernatural comes from our world--so you're saying that the idea of things being supernatural comes from our world and not from a world in which marshmallow peeps have a high flying movement score. Okay, I can accept that.

Magic is inherently supernatural (in our world)--this proposition depends upon context, especially cultural context, locale, language, and numerous other factors. The only way it can be true is to narrowly define what we mean by magic, which you haven't done til here:

I capitalized Supernatural trying to indicate the word "supernatural", where I should have quoted, I suppose. Let me rephrase.

The word "supernatural" comes from our world, not Erfworld. Magic, to us, is inherently supernatural because magic is not natural in our world. All things not natural are supernatural, by definition: note that supernatural has nature in its formation: that is no mistake or accident. Supernatural means that which is beyond nature. Science is the study of the natural world; ergo, anything that is not natural, that is explained by science, must be supernatural. Magic is supernatural in our world because if it was explained by science, it would become science. Science is, in the end, the elimination of magic by explanation. If there are things that cannot be explained by science, then there is a supernatural and a new term would be needed to study that: magic being the obvious choice, but perhaps those involved would choose something else.

The OP's question, which asked why is magic supernatural comes to this: it is supernatural in our world, because it is not natural. Magic is not supernatural in Erfworld, because it is natural there.

Pointyleaf
2009-04-06, 08:59 PM
I capitalized Supernatural trying to indicate the word "supernatural", where I should have quoted, I suppose. Let me rephrase.

The word "supernatural" comes from our world, not Erfworld. Magic, to us, is inherently supernatural because magic is not natural in our world. All things not natural are supernatural, by definition: note that supernatural has nature in its formation: that is no mistake or accident. Supernatural means that which is beyond nature. Science is the study of the natural world; ergo, anything that is not natural, that is explained by science, must be supernatural. Magic is supernatural in our world because if it was explained by science, it would become science. Science is, in the end, the elimination of magic by explanation. If there are things that cannot be explained by science, then there is a supernatural and a new term would be needed to study that: magic being the obvious choice, but perhaps those involved would choose something else.

The OP's question, which asked why is magic supernatural comes to this: it is supernatural in our world, because it is not natural. Magic is not supernatural in Erfworld, because it is natural there.

Right - it's most appropriate to define "supernatural" and "natural" with respect to the worlds that they are in. "Magic" is supernatural in our world, and science is not, but magic might be natural in another world, and our kind of science might be supernatural.

I think the lack of visible blood is just an artistic artifact of the world being cutesy; we've no indication that Erfworld biologies are different than normal fantasy/roleplay humanoids.

Midnight Roamer
2009-04-06, 09:08 PM
I capitalized Supernatural trying to indicate the word "supernatural", where I should have quoted, I suppose. Let me rephrase.

The word "supernatural" comes from our world, not Erfworld. Magic, to us, is inherently supernatural because magic is not natural in our world. All things not natural are supernatural, by definition: note that supernatural has nature in its formation: that is no mistake or accident. Supernatural means that which is beyond nature. Science is the study of the natural world; ergo, anything that is not natural, that is explained by science, must be supernatural. Magic is supernatural in our world because if it was explained by science, it would become science. Science is, in the end, the elimination of magic by explanation. If there are things that cannot be explained by science, then there is a supernatural and a new term would be needed to study that: magic being the obvious choice, but perhaps those involved would choose something else.

The OP's question, which asked why is magic supernatural comes to this: it is supernatural in our world, because it is not natural. Magic is not supernatural in Erfworld, because it is natural there.

I would still argue with you about the nature of magic and how it is seen in our world, but that is more of a cultural/semantic issue. (This doesn't mean that it's not important, just prolly not important to people who aren't moldy academics.)

Now that I have a better picture of what you were saying, I think I agree. Since Erfworld lacks what someone from our universe would refer to as natural laws, I suppose supernatural is a term for which they would have little use, or frame of reference.

fendrin
2009-04-06, 10:06 PM
{Scrubbed}

Tredrick
2009-04-07, 12:04 AM
The proper way to use Occam's Razor is as a starting point for investigations. All other factors being equal, the simplest solution is the best place to start looking. If it proves correct, awesome, you are done. If it is incorrect, you have often gained valuable information that helps investigations into the other options you had in the beginning.

Kreistor
2009-04-07, 02:07 AM
You still don't get it. You keep trying to use it as a way to select between multiple possibilities. That is inherently an incorrect way to use it.

No, you are wrong.


Occam's razor, also Ockham's razor,[1] is a principle attributed to 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar, William of Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae ("law of parsimony", "law of economy", or "law of succinctness"): entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, roughly translated as "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity." An alternative version Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate translates "plurality should not be posited without necessity." [2]

When multiple competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood.

Occam's Raqor is designed specifically to select between competing hypotheses.


And? If you want your posts to be taken seriously it is advisable to either defend your positions or concede the point. Going off on a tangent based on an example is not going to help, and only contributes to the 'wall of text' phenomenon.

You're kidding, right? It's a distraction tactic, useful for many reasons. It can reveal poor knowledge of the topic under discussion, gain knowledge of hypocritical aspects of an opponent's character, or find weaknesses in the opponent's style. You, for instance, have revealed that you won't fight tangents, which gives Pander a style he can use to undermine you. It also inspires you to become preachy, which loses you respect. Telling others about their mistakes can work, but you've got to dot your own T's first. There's nothing substantive in your entire post, all of it being counter-argument, so your suggestion on how to debate sounds completely self-serving. Losing you the points you were hoping to get off him.

As for walls of text, well, I compare your post to the one you quoted... fendrin kicked your butt in terms of size and readability. You quoted everything of his, broke up your comments, and didn't make a single cohesive argument. Much like I've done here, ironically. Fendrin just wrote a couple paragraphs that flowed together and stayed on a single point. You started the wall of text, not him.


I have not taken a stance on whether or not blood exists in Erfworld. It does not seem particularly relevant nor is it particularly interesting to me.

So you're arguing about what, exactly? If the premise of the OP is unimportant to you, and you're arguing on other things, then aren't your own arguments inherently tangential?

tomaO2
2009-04-07, 02:37 AM
Fendrin, the exisitance of blood is certainly relevent with regards to aspects of the Transilvito vampires and especially with Parson. It exists but not in the way we know it. The lack of bleeding means that Erfworlders can survive wounds that would be fatal to Parson because he would bleed out and die. This is is a critical difference because no bleeding means it's far easier and more precise to run a hit-point based system. I also wonder what effect seeing blood would have on Erfworlders, as they are not used to reactions like that when damaged.

On the other hand, Parson doesn't seem to need to shave. Does Erfworld shave him every day or did it stop his beard from growing? Seeing him wounded would show if Erfworld magic is effecting him in other ways. I think any and all potential and proven differences between Parson and Erfworlders merit attention and I hope they are given time in the book.

I'd love to know if Parson can walk across hexes, how others might react to his lack of stats, if his pupils have any relevance (probably not but they might), what reaction that he or, preferably, some other human might garner when his corpse doesn't disappear when he dies and, yes, if he bleeds differently then Erfworlders and what effects these changes might have in Erfworlders reactions to him.

Jon Pander
2009-04-07, 02:45 AM
You still don't get it. You keep trying to use it as a way to select between multiple possibilities. That is inherently an incorrect way to use it.
I'm glad to see that you think you know better than scholars who have studied it extensively for their professional lives and been published on the subject.



And? If you want your posts to be taken seriously it is advisable to either defend your positions or concede the point.
Hrm... I not only defended my position, I used actual evidence of the meaning of Ockham's razor from a scholar who was widely published on the subject. But I guess that's no competition for your google skills.

[QUOTE=fendrin;5965796]Going off on a tangent based on an example is not going to help, and only contributes to the 'wall of text' phenomenon.
Uh... look who's talking.... your post takes up most of this page......


I have not taken a stance on whether or not blood exists in Erfworld. It does not seem particularly relevant nor is it particularly interesting to me.
And yet you continually debate it. Glutton for punishment.


No, I don't. The obvious answer is in my experience often not the correct one.
1) It is.
2) This isn't something you can actually debate by saying 'no you don't.' This is widely published fact.


Newtonian relativity was obvious until Einstein came along. Atoms were atomic until we discovered electrons. The world was flat until we circumnavigated it. Obviousness and simplicity make for easy answers, not correct ones.
I'd respond but you warned me to not encourage tangents.

Oh heck I don't care.

Dude, Newtonian relativity was never 'obvious'... nor was Einstein's theories.
As for the world being flat, it had quite a few holes in that theory... such as 'what hapens when you fall off the edge? Where do you go?

The answer? Here Be Monsters! Don't Go there!

Yeah.... real iron clad obviousness - so much so that they didnt wnt to answer the question.

Now... which is more obvious an answer, that when you go too far in the ocean, you fall off the edge of the world into some ill-defined nether region of nothingness, or that the world is spherical, so you can't fall off the edge, which renders the question of 'where do you fall' moot.


Big words like what? 'Idiomatic'? That hasn't been a 'big word' since I was 12. Do you have any actual criticisms of what I wrote or do you concede the point?
You seem to like to both argue your point and ignore the points others make to refute you. Must make it really easy when you ignore half of what's said in any conversation or debate. Why would I concede a point when I've given you published information stating my point, which has been used um.... for about 90 years as a standard in philosophy and scientific theory for debating hypotheses?

Jon Pander
2009-04-07, 02:49 AM
Yes, we have. Take a look at the blue dwagon in panel five on the linked page (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0031.html). It also shows red, brown, pink and yellow dwagons using their breath weapons (okay, the yellow's isn't a "breath" weapon.) Purples are shown using their sonic attack here (panel 8) (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0087.html), and greens are shown using their gas breath in panel 10 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0056.html).

Yeah someone else pointed that out to me and gotta admit that does show that blue dragons CAN breathe lightning, though it still seems different than the Van De Graaf effect (which seemed to go everwhere, even behind the dragon) and there was not 'veil of bats' in the picture when Stanley attacked Cesar with Van De Graaf.

So instead of it being a 95/5 chance in favor if it being Stanley's weapon and not a veiled blue dwagon, the odds have changed to 50/50.

But I do admit that it's been shown a bunch of different breath weapons can come from dwagons. You sure it's bubble gum btw? That seems.... ineffective.

Jon Pander
2009-04-07, 02:51 AM
So you're arguing about what, exactly? If the premise of the OP is unimportant to you, and you're arguing on other things, then aren't your own arguments inherently tangential?
Kriestor, you may soon be my new hero.

HandofShadows
2009-04-07, 04:31 AM
Here is another example of a blue unleashing it's breath weapon http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0127.html It's top left corner 1st panel. It's at a distance, but the effect certainly is blue colored, like lightning. Wonder what the Brown dragons breath? Looks like smoke.

In response to how effective bubblegum would be. It would certainly restrict your ability to move and if happened to hit you head/face, well breathing is important if you want to stay alive very long.

fendrin
2009-04-07, 09:56 AM
No, you are wrong.

Occam's Raqor is designed specifically to select between competing hypotheses.

Er, no. 'Occam's Razor' is widely used that way, but it is a misapplication of what William of Ockham wrote. Wikipedia is a great reference (I use it quite a bit myself), but it is not an authoritative source. I recommend the article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on William of Ockham (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ockham/). Section 4 is the relevant portion.


You're kidding, right? It's a distraction tactic, useful for many reasons. It can reveal poor knowledge of the topic under discussion, gain knowledge of hypocritical aspects of an opponent's character, or find weaknesses in the opponent's style. You, for instance, have revealed that you won't fight tangents, which gives Pander a style he can use to undermine you. It also inspires you to become preachy, which loses you respect. Telling others about their mistakes can work, but you've got to dot your own T's first. There's nothing substantive in your entire post, all of it being counter-argument, so your suggestion on how to debate sounds completely self-serving. Losing you the points you were hoping to get off him. I would say that using a distraction tactic is good for revealing one's own poor knowledge, not in bringing it out in one's debate opponent. Can Jon Pander use tangents to undermine me? As far as I can tell, tangents are used to shift the conversation away from an opponents area of strength, trying to get them onto shaky ground (to paraphrase Sun Tzu, attack where your enemy is weak). Refusing to to be drawn off topic would be a defense against tangents, not a weakness to them.

As for being preachy, yes, it is a failing of mine. Misuse of 'Occam's Razor' is a pet peeve, and it brings out the worst. However, that does not undermine the validity of my points. I reject your notion that my response to Jon Pander was weak by only being counter-arguments. I made the initial argument (that he was misusing Ockham's razor) and presented evidence (the same article I linked to above). He responded by quoting another source, which I then used to reinforce my original point (by pointing out a section he seemed to ignore). At that point, I had two sources backing up my claim and he had zero.


As for walls of text, well, I compare your post to the one you quoted... fendrin kicked your butt in terms of size and readability. You quoted everything of his, broke up your comments, and didn't make a single cohesive argument. Much like I've done here, ironically. Fendrin just wrote a couple paragraphs that flowed together and stayed on a single point. You started the wall of text, not him.
I am honestly confused by this... I'm not sure who this is addressed to. You are responding to my post, but then you say "fendrin kicked your butt" and other similar statements that seem to indicate you are talking to Jon Pander.


So you're arguing about what, exactly? If the premise of the OP is unimportant to you, and you're arguing on other things, then aren't your own arguments inherently tangential? Although I may not have an interest in the original discussion, the rhetoric employed is an interest of mine.


Fendrin, the exisitance of blood is certainly relevent with regards to aspects of the Transilvito vampires and especially with Parson.
Perhaps I was unclear; I meant that it is not relevant or interesting to me. I understand that it may be interesting or relevant to others.


I'm glad to see that you think you know better than scholars who have studied it extensively for their professional lives and been published on the subject.

Hrm... I not only defended my position, I used actual evidence of the meaning of Ockham's razor from a scholar who was widely published on the subject. But I guess that's no competition for your google skills.
I don't know better than the scholars, I learn from them. I read what they write, and I seek to comprehend. That is far different from 'google skills'. In fact, the SEP article I have posted twice now does not show up on the first page of google results for either "Occam's Razor" or "Ockham's Razor". So why did I use it, if it is merely a source found through broad internet searching? That fact is I have researched the term before, and in a context where google searches and Wikipedia are not acceptable sources.

You have shown that you did not thoroughly read the source you posted, as the very text you quote went on to point out your error.


And yet you continually debate it. Glutton for punishment. Indeed, I am.



1) It is.
2) This isn't something you can actually debate by saying 'no you don't.' This is widely published fact.
Fact? Hardly.


Dude, Newtonian relativity was never 'obvious'... nor was Einstein's theories.
As for the world being flat, it had quite a few holes in that theory...
Oversimplifying leads to 'holes' and inaccuracies. That is why more complicated theories have become widely accepted in their place.


You seem to like to both argue your point and ignore the points others make to refute you. Must make it really easy when you ignore half of what's said in any conversation or debate. Why would I concede a point when I've given you published information stating my point, which has been used um.... for about 90 years as a standard in philosophy and scientific theory for debating hypotheses?
Kreistor says I only counter-argue, you say I ignore your points. These are contradictory, and I have to say that Kreistor has established far more debate credibility that you. I would also like to point out that instead of countering my points, you have ignored them or tried to shift the focus. It seems that your criticisms of my posts are at least as relevant to your own posts, if not more so.

Kreistor
2009-04-07, 12:14 PM
Er, no. 'Occam's Razor' is widely used that way, but it is a misapplication of what William of Ockham wrote. Wikipedia is a great reference (I use it quite a bit myself), but it is not an authoritative source. I recommend the article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on William of Ockham (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ockham/). Section 4 is the relevant portion.

Way to obfuscate. That reference is so complex and difficult to draw any useful information from that you can say anything and get away with it. Nowhee is there a definition of Occam's Razor, at least that I can find. And it is Occam's Razr that we are discussing, not Occam's Nominalization, or his shoe size. Neither are relevant to the discussion at hand. What Occam believed or stated is actually no longer relevant. What is important is what people believe it means now. If you are using a different definition (as I sometimes do), it is vital that you indicate that the common definition does not apply. WHen I talk about using the Razor to eliminate assumptions and unproven elements, I make certain peopel know that's the definition I am using, not the more commonly accepted "The simplest answer is the best."

Now, you can continue to obfuscate if you wish, but you're still wrong. You are not using the common definition of Occam's Razor, and however historically accurate you are being, you are not being accurate to the modern definition. That's your mistake, not that of the other participants. You are the exception, and they are the rule, because over time, definitions do change -- that is part of the evolution of English.


I would say that using a distraction tactic is good for revealing one's own poor knowledge, not in bringing it out in one's debate opponent.

It worked against you. It made you react to your weakness. Now you're scrambling trying to find a way to make the technique inappropriate. You're only digging a deeper hole. Argue all you want, the damage is done, and the only way to correct it is to learn how to deal with it without revealing your weakness.


Can Jon Pander use tangents to undermine me? As far as I can tell, tangents are used to shift the conversation away from an opponents area of strength, trying to get them onto shaky ground (to paraphrase Sun Tzu, attack where your enemy is weak). Refusing to to be drawn off topic would be a defense against tangents, not a weakness to them.

But that's not what you did. You protested the tactic invalid, and tried to act as an expert on something that no one is an expert on -- internet debating process. No one gets to define what is acceptable, except the moderators of the forums involved. Now you're on a deep tangent in which you can't win, becaus again you are trying to achieve control over the same topic you failed to control before. Dig, dig, dig.


As for being preachy, yes, it is a failing of mine. Misuse of 'Occam's Razor' is a pet peeve, and it brings out the worst.

Fighting the evolution of language is plainly a failing effort. Getting hung up over it suggests you're in the wrong medium for debating.


However, that does not undermine the validity of my points.

It does. Your definition is not accurate anymore. They used it the common way, which is inherently the correct way. Are you going to try to insist that we all try to undo the Great Vowel Shift in order to speak english the right way?


I reject your notion that my response to Jon Pander was weak by only being counter-arguments. I made the initial argument (that he was misusing Ockham's razor) and presented evidence (the same article I linked to above). He responded by quoting another source, which I then used to reinforce my original point (by pointing out a section he seemed to ignore). At that point, I had two sources backing up my claim and he had zero.

The weaknes was in the form of the response. He wrote a single post with a theme and flow. You responded by breaking your argument into pieces, facing individual sentences of his, instead of replying as a single argument as he did. I'm using the same technique as you, for the same reason. I don't have a basic position. By responding like this, you lose initiative, trying to breka apart the argument in hopes of defeating one small part of it. If it's a lynchpin, you can break the chain of logic. IBut it doesn't prove anything for yourself, it only disproves the opponent. That's why your method is inherently weaker if you're trying to prove something.


I am honestly confused by this... I'm not sure who this is addressed to. You are responding to my post, but then you say "fendrin kicked your butt" and other similar statements that seem to indicate you are talking to Jon Pander.

Got your names reversed, that's all.


Although I may not have an interest in the original discussion, the rhetoric employed is an interest of mine.

That's fine. I'm arguing because I'm bored.


I don't know better than the scholars, I learn from them. I read what they write, and I seek to comprehend. That is far different from 'google skills'. In fact, the SEP article I have posted twice now does not show up on the first page of google results for either "Occam's Razor" or "Ockham's Razor". So why did I use it, if it is merely a source found through broad internet searching? That fact is I have researched the term before, and in a context where google searches and Wikipedia are not acceptable sources.

Ah, but you are on the internet debating, not in a theatre with predetermined rules. This is "anything goes debating", and learnign how to deal with all forms of argument is what makes you good out here. "Idealists need not apply." Protecting that people argue in a different way than you only reveals that your skills are lacking: you need a particular arena, and where that arena does not exist, you flounder.


Kreistor says I only counter-argue, you say I ignore your points. These are contradictory...

Not entirely out of the realm of possibility. If you counter-argue irrelevant points, then you ignore the bg ones and counter-argue useless ones.

But I was talking about the style of counter-arguing. By responding to quotes, you are inherently not making your own argument, but replying to your opponent's position.

Look at Pander's 206. He doesn't quote you, but he replies to you. That's how you make a new argument. He doesn't reference your own thoughts, and thereby begins the thought train fresh. Your 220 follows the quote-respond style, and that is counter-arguing. Hopefulyl that explains the difference. You're not making a single argument because your style is choppy, and doesn't flow together to create a train of thought.

BillyJimBoBob
2009-04-07, 03:44 PM
As far as the Vinny debate goes, I'd say he reminds me more of Vinny Gambini than Vinny Delpino. Nothing gets by either one of them.I thought he was Vinny Barbarino.
In reference to the earlier posts, vampires can be supernatural in comparison to other Erfworlders, if we define supernatural to mean "beyond the ordinary". They certainly do seem to be stronger than standard infantry, but we haven't seen much in the way of line troops from them either, unless the bats are it. To me, there is no "natural" in Erfworld, so it would be a poor point of comparison.In the RTS genre a side can have side specific units and this isn't typically supernatural as much as its a means to give some differences between the sides for the sake of replayability. GK has Twolls, FAQ (probably) had gwiffons, and trolls and griffons are "supernatural" just as much as vampires are. Transylvito having bats and flying warlords is just another Erf expression of the genre, it doesn't set TV apart as being weird in this world.
The only one who seems to have extra-erfly knowledge is Parson.You're forgetting Charlie, whose archons cite corporate speak and who dresses his thinkagram visitors in a Mork costume. Not to mention "getting" a lot of slang that Maggie just thought made Parson weird enough to understand Charlie.

fendrin
2009-04-07, 03:56 PM
Way to obfuscate. That reference is so complex and difficult to draw any useful information from that you can say anything and get away with it. Nowhee is there a definition of Occam's Razor, at least that I can find. And it is Occam's Razr that we are discussing, not Occam's Nominalization, or his shoe size. Neither are relevant to the discussion at hand. Section 4.1 is entitled "Ockham's Razor", and has 3 paragraphs directly related to the concept. It refers to the opening portion of section 4 and is expounded upon in sections 4.2 and 4.3, which is why I referred you to section 4 as a whole.

If that's too obfuscated for you, then I don't know what else I can do.


Now, you can continue to obfuscate if you wish, but you're still wrong. You are not using the common definition of Occam's Razor, and however historically accurate you are being, you are not being accurate to the modern definition. That's your mistake, not that of the other participants. You are the exception, and they are the rule, because over time, definitions do change -- that is part of the evolution of English.

Very well. I reject your notion that common misuses of jargon are acceptable definitions, but I do not wish to drift into a tangent on the philosophy of language, and shall therefore endeavor to work with your definition:

The commonly accepted meaning of 'Ockham's Razor' is a logical fallacy.

Well, that's about the best I can do.


The weaknes was in the form of the response. He wrote a single post with a theme and flow. You responded by breaking your argument into pieces, facing individual sentences of his, instead of replying as a single argument as he did. I'm using the same technique as you, for the same reason. I don't have a basic position. By responding like this, you lose initiative, trying to breka apart the argument in hopes of defeating one small part of it. If it's a lynchpin, you can break the chain of logic. IBut it doesn't prove anything for yourself, it only disproves the opponent. That's why your method is inherently weaker if you're trying to prove something.
Now who's trying to be an expert at internet debating? Your criticism is either false or hypocritical.


Not entirely out of the realm of possibility. If you counter-argue irrelevant points, then you ignore the bg ones and counter-argue useless ones.True, though I would argue that I had not done so.


But I was talking about the style of counter-arguing. By responding to quotes, you are inherently not making your own argument, but replying to your opponent's position.

Look at Pander's 206. He doesn't quote you, but he replies to you. That's how you make a new argument. He doesn't reference your own thoughts, and thereby begins the thought train fresh. Your 220 follows the quote-respond style, and that is counter-arguing. Hopefulyl that explains the difference. You're not making a single argument because your style is choppy, and doesn't flow together to create a train of thought.
I suppose I favor substance over style, completeness over generality. If I tried that sort of tactic in my papers, I would flunk my classes. Just because this is the internet doesn't mean that good form is useless, merely that poor form is more common. I take pleasure in being the positive exception. :smallwink:

BillyJimBoBob
2009-04-07, 05:55 PM
There's been some speculation that Stanley will become a barbarian. this strip (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0087.html) seems to indicate that he will not. If Stanley being in the field when Saline IV was killed and GK fell didn't make him turn barbarian (or be disbanded) because he was the Heir Designate, then being in the field when GK falls won't make him turn barbarian because he is the leader.

Access to the treasury is a different matter. In the RTS genre you need a city to access your wealth. It's clear that some funds can be carried (or credited to a person in some abstract way) or Sizemore couldn't have paid Janis for training and Jillian couldn't pay for her own and her band of barbarian's upkeep.

So the question is: How long can Stanley afford Jack's upkeep plus a few dwagons and the odd KISS member?

And the next question is: Is Stanley on the hook for upkeep of casters in the magic kingdom?

And the final question is: Where did Parson go?

Kreistor
2009-04-07, 06:09 PM
You favour substance over style? So you make a grandiose statement about the common form of Occam's Razor being false, and fail to support the theory in any way. There's absolutely no substance to such a claim, so the only thing you're left with is style. Which you use bold type for, just to make it absolutely certain the lack of substance isn't missed.

And you accuse me of being hypocritical? Heh, I never made any claims to be proving anything here. All I'm doing is having a nice little conversation playing the spoiler. I don't have any position to actually attack, so you're limited to facing the details of what I choose to attack.

BTW, I read section 4. I said the thing didn't define Occam's Razor, and it didn't. It discusses how Occam's Razor developed from Occam's nominalism. Occam's Razor was developed because of Occam's work in his own field, and named after him because others realized that his postulate extended beyond his own field. You can't look back at Occam for Occam's Razor, because he didn't postulate it outside a specific field, but you can look to him for inspiration using parallels to what he was discussing.


Still, Ockham's “nominalism,” in both the first and the second of the above senses, is often viewed as derived from a common source: an underlying concern for ontological parsimony. This is summed up in the famous slogan known as “Ockham's Razor,” often expressed as “Don't multiply entities beyond necessity.”[26] Although the sentiment is certainly Ockham's, that particular formulation is nowhere to be found in his texts. Moreover, as usually stated, it is a sentiment that virtually all philosophers, medieval or otherwise, would accept; no one wants a needlessly bloated ontology. The question, of course, is which entities are needed and which are not.

Look at that marvelously clear language. "Parsimony"? "Ontological"? I called it obfuscated for a reason. How many people are going to understand those words? We could write it as "underlying concern for the simplicity of the metaphysical world." That's language that doesn't obfuscate, but pretty much anyone can understand. It's still confusing in a way, though. Science, where Occam's Razor is most used, is not about the metaphysical, but the physical world.

Technical language is inherently exclusionary. Anyone not aware of the definitions are unable to participate, not because they are incapable of understanding, but because those that involve themselves want to limit participation. That's what using Stanford does. If someone can't understand what is being written there, because they lack the knowledge of the language used, then it let's you feel superior. Is that why you use it? You're incapable of actually facing people on the grounds of what they intend: you can only face them on ground they don't understand because the words being used are designed to confuse?

Occam's Razor is summed up in Stanford as "Don't multiply entities beyond necessity." OKay, that has to mean something relevant.


Occam's razor, also Ockham's razor,[1] is a principle attributed to 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar, William of Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae ("law of parsimony", "law of economy", or "law of succinctness"): entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, roughly translated as "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity." An alternative version Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate translates "plurality should not be posited without necessity." [2]

Okay, Wikipedia actually posits the same thing. "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" vs. "Don't multiply entities beyond necessity." Well, I don't see a difference, but you seem to suggest WIkipedia got it wrong. Ah, well. It must come down to the explanations.


When multiple competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood.

Oh, right... Stanford doesn't actually explain what that ancient english means, does it? To them, if you don't know what "entities" means in context of analysis, you're out of luck. There's that technical thing happening again to deny access to the uninitiated.


Ockham's Razor, in the senses in which it can be found in Ockham himself, never allows us to deny putative entities; at best it allows us to refrain from positing them in the absence of known compelling reasons for doing so. In part, this is because human beings can never be sure they know what is and what is not “beyond necessity”; the necessities are not always clear to us. But even if we did know them, Ockham would still not allow that his Razor allows us to deny entities that are unnecessary.

Now, this tells us that what Occam is telling us is that unproven "entities" are sometimes necessary, basically because we lack enough knowledge to explain everything. So, at that point, we can theorize and postulate on the unknown. This will inevitably result in multiple competing theories, and using Occam's nominalization, choose between them. That's what it is there for: to choose which of many postulates is the most likely truth. Stanford doesn't tell us that, because it assumes we'll know. Wikipedia jumps straight to the explanation.

Stanford really isn't saying anything different. It simply doesn't present Occam's Razor in a modern setting because this si a history of Occam the man, not his Razor. Note that it tells us that Occam never formulated what we call his Razor. The quote for Stanford about entities is his work. That's the ultimate obfuscation at work here. Occam never stated the Razor for a reason: Ocam was a monk and his philosophy concerned religious theory, not scientific. Stanford refers to "ontological parsimony" because that's what Occam dealt with: the metaphysical, not physical, world. This history of Occam was never intended as a disucssion of the Razor he never invented: it's discussing his own work. The Razor was developed by other people with Occam's nominalization as inspiration.

When Occam discussed entities, he was really talking about religious entities. You'll notice that in the Stanford article, Occam's Razor is discussed in the "Metaphysics" section. Occam was 14th century, before the invention of teh scientific method: his developments attempted to explain metaphysics. That's why his own statement seems confusing to us, since Occam's Razor, our only source for knowing the man existed, is used in science and debates: metaphysics has been forgotten, except by historians. When you know that Occam was discussing religious matters about angels, "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity," suddenly makes sense. He's talking about explaining religious matters using fewer angels, not scientific principles while attempting to avoid assumptions.

We can't return to Occam himself, because his work is not directly applicable to science. He only inspired others to extend the basis for his philosophy beyond his field -- "Reducing entities" becomes "reducing assumptions". We can look to him for inspiration, but if we tried to explain things using entities, like he did, we'd be discussing angels on pinheads. The modern Occam's Razor is merely a rephrasing of his principles in a modern context. Eliminating as many assumptions is an exact parallel to eliminating entities: only the field the philosophy applies to changes.

fractal
2009-04-07, 06:37 PM
Can we finally stop the debate about debating tactics? It's not an activity likely to accomplish much.

I've always thought of Occam's Razor as something that biases you in favor of simpler explanations over more complicated ones - but it certainly proves nothing. Example: If I were a detective, and wondering what route a criminal had chosen to get from point A to point B, I'd check the direct route first. After all, the shortest path between two points is a straight line. However, after having checked that, I'd check other possibilities too.

Just because something is "more likely" doesn't mean that it is guaranteed.

Occam's Razor suggests that Caesar is a jerk. He acts like a jerk. However, there is some unlikely possibility that he actually has Jillian's best interests at heart, and he's just "helping" in an extremely roundabout fashion. Occam's Razor isn't capable of proving otherwise.

DevilDan
2009-04-07, 06:50 PM
Regarding Jillian's "suicidal" attack on Caesar: simplest theory is that she's distraught and that her usual style is never either particularly cautious or defensive. I don't imagine that she'll be completely dropped from the story.

About Stanley's reaction: depending on how feasible it is to rebuild GK, he may not be terribly upset. Sure, he'd rant and rave, as is his wont, but he'd be happy to see the RC coalition toasted and Ansom gone. The potential loss of the pliers might be more upsetting, though who know how his thinking has evolved of late, vis a vis the Tools and the Titans. We don't really know what a "treasury" looks like, but it might simply be there for whoever rebuilds/conquers/claims GK: Erf is a game-like world, after all. I never got to see the sequence I was hoping for, the "magical" rebuilding of a Faq city, but I may yet get to see the reconstruction/reestablishment of GK.

How long the volcano stays active is anybody's guess. This sort of croakamancy/dirtamancy likely has nothing even close to a precedent, on Erf or on Earth (That is, unless someone can point to another living volcano.)

How anyone can make a thoroughly unfounded statement like "He's [Caesar] probably the strongest warlord left on what's left of the coalition" is beyond me.

About "supernatural": just kidding. I'm not getting into that zero-zero game.

I propose Occam's Swiss Army Knife: "My explanation is prettier." (Other options: Occam's Machete and Occam's +1 Razor.)

Finally, it's minor point, but the kingdom is named Faq, not FAQ.

fendrin
2009-04-07, 09:34 PM
<what you said>

heh, well, we've obviously started to annoy fractal and DevilDan. Probably others too who just haven't spoken up.

I propose we wrap this up. I will make my final argument here and then allow you to get the last word (if you so desire).

Jargon exists for a reason; it is not to obfuscate but rather to be a precise language, which naturally evolved languages are not. It's not quite as good as a deliberately planned artificial language (such as a programming language or logical language), but the point is the same: to provide a means for communications between experts to be as clear as possible.

One of the advantages of a good jargon is that it is a lot easier to learn than a full natural language. Words and phrases tend to have fewer meanings than in a natural language, and changes much more slowly, if at all.

The problem with jargon is that it is often adopted into common usage natural language. In the process, it is often misunderstood and becomes subject to the evolutionary pressures that cause a natural language to change.

Ockham's razor is an example of this. In philosophical jargon it indicates a rule of thumb for creating metaphysical claims. The common/natural language use is a largely fallacious method for choosing between two hypothesis on the basis of simplicity. I call this fallacious because there are many other more relevant ways that hypothesis should be judged that are more important than simplicity. For instance, truthfulness. Choosing on simplicity is problematic in far more cases than it is useful.

Jon Pander
2009-04-07, 10:33 PM
I thought he was Vinny Barbarino.In the RTS genre a side can have side specific units and this isn't typically supernatural as much as its a means to give some differences between the sides for the sake of replayability. GK has Twolls, FAQ (probably) had gwiffons, and trolls and griffons are "supernatural" just as much as vampires are. Transylvito having bats and flying warlords is just another Erf expression of the genre, it doesn't set TV apart as being weird in this world.You're forgetting Charlie, whose archons cite corporate speak and who dresses his thinkagram visitors in a Mork costume. Not to mention "getting" a lot of slang that Maggie just thought made Parson weird enough to understand Charlie.

Charlie -might- have extra-erfly knowledge. He might be extra-erfly, or he might just be an erfworlder with an odd mind. He might just be able to understand Parson-speak because of the dish, or because the dish makes him think differently than other erfworlders.

Parson -definitely- has extra-erfly knowledge, because he is definitely an extra-erfly being.

SomeUnregPunk
2009-04-07, 10:48 PM
Right now the other royalty groups are trying to pick up the pieces of what happened.

One if not all of them is probably go to look at all the past intel on the battle ever since Parson got into the fight. They going to see something really scary.

They going to see Stanley actually allowing himself to be decoy, sacrificing his own men and capital just to take one of the Tools away from the Coalition and then going so far as to wiping out the Coalition's armies in one shot.

The Coalition is obviously broken and if Charlie is start to over-think the last few battles since Parson got enlisted, he may start to believe that Parson played him for a fool since the very beginning. That in all his communications with him, Parson was trying to make him overconfident and pull his Archeons into his dirtamancer trap.

The rest of the various nations in this place might assume Stanley is now a weak barbarian since he lost his capital and he doesn't have any cities to fall back on. I'd bet Charlie is going to assume the worst scenario, Stanley is backed by the Titans and the rules just may not apply anymore.

That Dirtamancer and Wanda must have leveled a couple hundred times now. They took out massive amounts of troops of various levels on multiple hexes.

Jon Pander
2009-04-07, 10:54 PM
{Scrubbed}

Jon Pander
2009-04-07, 10:55 PM
{Scrubbed}

Jon Pander
2009-04-07, 11:05 PM
{Scrubbed}

Pointyleaf
2009-04-07, 11:07 PM
This is, by far, the most boring off-topic conversation that I've seen on an Erfworld thread. Can we get back to talking about the potential for a Maggie/Sizemore hookup?

SomeUnregPunk
2009-04-07, 11:14 PM
all this razor stuff is starting to give me a headache. So I went out and tried to find out the meaning...

Ockham's Razor is the principle proposed by William of Ockham in the fourteenth century: ``Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate'', which translates as ``entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily''.

A more straightforward application of the Razor is when we are face with two theories which have the same predictions and the available data cannot distinguish between them. In this case the Razor directs us to study in depth the simplest of the theories. --->http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node10.html

So the Razor says the simple explanation is better than the not simple explanation. But each explanation must use the same available data to come to different conclusions but the conclusions can't be unprove-able... Like you can't say ...
"Atom bombs work because God just $*** himself." How do you unprove or prove that?

multilis
2009-04-07, 11:29 PM
... if a fantasy world has anything in it that violates the expected norms or science (for instance, D&D owlbears (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owlbear)), it is explained away as being a magical effect. In this case, we already know the eruption was caused by magic. So the possible results are unlimited...
A 40 foot high undead lava golem arises in Gobwin Keep. No master. Nothing... except a pretty red headed girl holding some pliers.

Of course the golem falls in love, picks her up and carries her to the top of the mountain...

Goshen
2009-04-08, 12:17 AM
This is, by far, the most boring off-topic conversation that I've seen on an Erfworld thread. Can we get back to talking about the potential for a Maggie/Sizemore hookup? LOL! I think you understand what is really important here. :smalltongue:

HamsterOfTheGod
2009-04-08, 12:36 AM
Can we get back to talking about the potential for a Maggie/Sizemore hookup?

You have a dirty mind.

fractal
2009-04-08, 12:42 AM
This is, by far, the most boring off-topic conversation that I've seen on an Erfworld thread. Can we get back to talking about the potential for a Maggie/Sizemore hookup?
That really hurt my brain. I think I'd rather hear about the 40' uncroaked lava lamp golem.

It occurs to me, actually, that Maggie and Sizemore already are hooked up... with Wanda. And now the three of them are on their own in the Magic Kingdom, with nothing to do but...

Jon Pander
2009-04-08, 01:13 AM
This is, by far, the most boring off-topic conversation that I've seen on an Erfworld thread. Can we get back to talking about the potential for a Maggie/Sizemore hookup?

Bow chicka wow wow

HandofShadows
2009-04-08, 02:16 AM
That really hurt my brain. I think I'd rather hear about the 40' uncroaked lava lamp golem.

You want to hear about the 40' uncroaked lava lamp golem hooking up with Scarlet? :smalleek: :smallbiggrin:

BLANDCorporatio
2009-04-08, 02:54 AM
This is, by far, the most boring off-topic conversation that I've seen on an Erfworld thread. Can we get back to talking about the potential for a Maggie/Sizemore hookup?

I hear your pain. In the spirit of negotiation and compromise, let's discuss a Maggie/Sizemore/Wanda/Occam mega-swing.


You want to hear about the 40' uncroaked lava lamp golem hooking up with Scarlet? :smalleek: :smallbiggrin:

Actually, what' going to happen is that the lava lamp golem will carry Scarlett to the top of the volcano, then Stanley arrives with the Dwagons and tries to shoot the lava lamp golem down. A little bit like this:

http://www.everypicture.com/shop/books/aa610302d72bacd6c86419709a3e2c1d/king-kong.jpg