Yettie | 02 May 2004 6:29 p.m. PST |
GeorgeD* [I was wondering, with all the talk the last little while about sock puppets, and the mud slinging going on between some of the companies in the games industry. Is it only a matter of time till someone comes out with a miniatures ruleset simulating the epic battles between games and miniatures manufactures and retailers.] George like a lot of brilliant ideas I don't think you realize what you've stumbled on! Use the mindless unrelenting animosity inherent in this discussion as a game theme! Man it will make the American Civil war look to a Quaker picnic! And we could stipulate that the only figures used to play be bought from our new game company "GW" (short for Garrulous Wakos inc.)! The carnage would even make the blood of a soulless wonk like Donald "I AM SATIN" Rumsfeld run cold! Be the first kid on your block to rid the world of the dice crunching zombies that are WHAB! Now you can crush the DBX Nazies under the righteous heal of all that is good! Figure/troop type suggestions welcome!!! Bill AKA yettie..."Otis" |
John the OFM | 02 May 2004 7:44 p.m. PST |
You should really not drink, and then go on line. |
KSmyth | 02 May 2004 8:19 p.m. PST |
Mphhhhhhh! (followed by stifled snickering) I'm glad I didn't post this. Kevin |
Jakar Nilson | 02 May 2004 8:23 p.m. PST |
So... does it use d6 or average dice? |
Streitax | 02 May 2004 8:24 p.m. PST |
So Donald Rumsfield is made from a smooth, shimmering, soft, luxurious, fabric? Or did you mean to say, 'I AM SATAN'? |
Cacogen | 02 May 2004 8:43 p.m. PST |
I heard it was going be a game based on Rock, Paper, Scissors, aka RPS (for those that can't live without acronyms). |
Capt John Miller | 02 May 2004 8:51 p.m. PST |
Rock is dead... long live paper and scissors
|
Coffee Fiend | 02 May 2004 8:57 p.m. PST |
Secretary of Defense by day - luxurious fabric by night. |
Black Rommel | 02 May 2004 9:22 p.m. PST |
I agree 10 million percent with the fine Mr. Carroll on this topic. Let me do that! |
The Dread Pirate GeorgeD | 02 May 2004 9:45 p.m. PST |
I just gotta learn to keep my mouth shut sometimes....Sheeeesh!!!:-) George D |
LeiFeng | 02 May 2004 10:14 p.m. PST |
drunken dwarves attennnshun |
Polish Lancer | 02 May 2004 11:47 p.m. PST |
DBM or A good game. have the WAB books for Romans and the list basically suck! Very disappointing. |
Yettie | 03 May 2004 3:31 a.m. PST |
Streitax*[So Donald Rumsfield is made from a smooth, shimmering, soft, luxurious, fabric? Or did you mean to say, 'I AM SATAN'?]...LOL SAATAN yes I did...or did I? Bill AKA yettie..."Otis"
|
Plynkes | 03 May 2004 4:49 a.m. PST |
My usual rule is to not post on TMP when I'm SOBER! |
Coyote | 03 May 2004 5:18 a.m. PST |
I would make for a funny card game. Something simple, like 2 decks of 45 cards, with 7 optional cards per deck (basically, choose between 2 cards when building the deck) That way you could use a regular deck of cards. |
Rudysnelson | 03 May 2004 6:30 a.m. PST |
I have gone to only six conventions so far this year. I keep track to help me stock my booth. The count in regards to DBM vs DBA vs WAB is aas follows. Different DBA tournament players = 58 vs DBM 54 vs WAb 12. the number of games recorded; DBA = 118 vs DBM 97 vs WAB 6. There are also DBA games listed to be played at Warfair in Atlanta and Nashcon in nashville and DBM tournaments at Bayou Wars in New orleans. These ststs do not include the four DBM tournaments 9Houston, San Antonio, Atlanta and a local LA show) that I did not attend in the first quarter of the year put on by the Gulf South group. The number of WAB games are more limited and tend to be large multi-player events which have 1 or 2 games max per show. |
vtsaogames | 03 May 2004 7:11 a.m. PST |
I've played DBA for over 10 years. I played WAB once, found it old-fashioned, like games I used to play back in the 60's. But recently I've been tempted by the Dark Side and started playing Armati. Two of my buddies are coming over tonight and we'll break in Armati II. Come on, kid, first one's free.. |
Ivan DBA | 03 May 2004 10:00 a.m. PST |
Hey! This isn't funny!! WAB IS a pathetic throwback to the 60's!! Read Donald Featherstone! I have no problem with Armati, or Tactica, or Might of Arms, or WRG 7th/Warrior, DBM or any other modern set of ancients rules. They may not be my cup of tea, but I can respect them as realistic systems. I just prefer DBA because it simulates the level of detail I prefer, and it plays quickly! But WAB is really sad. I truly believe it is only popular because of the high production value of the rule books. Its pathetic really, so many gamers decide on a set of rules not on the rule's merits, but because it has a lot of glossy pics. |
Lee Brilleaux | 03 May 2004 10:06 a.m. PST |
I have often wondered about that sly smile on Rumsfeld's face. Now I think I know the answer. Even the worst news is not so bad when you have shimmery underwear next to the skin. Anyone care to prove otherwise? |
Windelin | 03 May 2004 10:50 a.m. PST |
Only really old people who remember the 60's play DBA. |
mbsparta | 03 May 2004 11:58 a.m. PST |
Thank you Ivan for pointing out how stupid and "pathetic" all those WAB players are. It all makes sense now. What a brilliant deductive mind! I can see why DBA is the game for you! Mike B |
Rudysnelson | 03 May 2004 12:09 p.m. PST |
Clarification. My stats are simply that and are not meant to demean any group or players of a certain system. I have honestly seen more games based on skirmish 'Pig Wars' than WAB . This is one reason why the 25mm that we carry are the later era Gripping beast than early eras. |
Capt John Miller | 03 May 2004 12:20 p.m. PST |
Guys, Let's not try to to the WAB vs DBA thing again, ok? Everyone has their own opinion on what makes a good game. For some, it's DBA, others it's WAB and still others Armati or Classical Hack. I have played both games sytems and each has thier strengths and weaknesses and let it go at that. There is no need for insults/put downs / criticisms / namecalling. There are other threads that cover this issue. DBA folk and WAB folk .....let it go....please Marc Canu |
Hundvig | 03 May 2004 12:50 p.m. PST |
Actually, Satin is the name Rummy uses when in drag...or was that Hoover? Rich |
Markind | 03 May 2004 3:58 p.m. PST |
So I faced off my Ancient Greeks DBA army, a mix of Hellenistic, Macedonian, and Alexandrian spearman, pikemen, auxilla and psiloi, against my Warhammer High Elves Army. Well, the DBA footmen could only move 2” on open terrain. My Elves have an 18” charge move. The Elves had a hard time spotting the enemy troops, because the Greeks only come up about knee level. The Greeks were spotted and the Elves Heavy Cavalry charged in. The Greeks were shocked and dismayed as they looked up at 40’ tall armored horses bearing down on them like an apocalypse. The cavalry rolled a bunch of hits and the Greeks recoiled, but the cav overran and eliminated the first two stands of spearmen. Fortunately for the Greeks, they overran off the board on the Greek side. The Greek pikemen on the left wheeled and contacted a unit of elf Swordmasters on the flank, and actually caused one wound. The Swordmasters got one attack back, and given that the sword looked to be about 15 long / 8.25 tons, its not a big surprise they dished out one wound. I used a knife and gouged a figure off of the pikemen stand. They passed the morale check. During the next magic phase, the final two stands of auxilla were decimated by Flames of the Phoenix, and the remaining DBA troops gave up (as they always do after loosing the 4th stand). The elves were then free to scrape the Greek remains off their boots, and to use their rhomphia as toothpicks. Those elves are big on dental hygiene. There’s your GW vs. DBA match. Epic, eh? ~mArK
|
Ivan DBA | 03 May 2004 5:15 p.m. PST |
Since I wasn't born in the 60's, I certainly don't remember them!! And to mbsparta, Thanks for your intelligent rebuttal. I did not in fact provide any deductive analysis, I merely suggested people go back and read Donald Featherstone to see that the sort of primitive, representational mechanics found in WAB today are very similar to what he invented way back then. It was fine for the time, but there have been advances both in our understanding of the nature of ancient/medieval warfare, and in our understanding of how to better model it in a game. More modern rules systems are both more realistic AND more playable. This is because (and here is some analysis for you mbsparta)modern systems realize that keeping track of the specific weapons and armor of individual figures is both tedious and unrealistic. Its fine for skirmishes, but not mass battles. Look at the number of stats that WAB assigns to a unit: movement, weapons skill, ballistic skill, strength, toughness, wounds, initiative, and leadership. This is further complicated by the fact that units often have a 'champion' of some sort who has somewhat different stats. It is complicated further still if the unit in question is in any way special or elite, because it will have various characteristics like 'drilled', 'stubborn' etc. Now compare to DBM, where a unit has a movement, combat versus foot, combat versus mounted, a grade (inferior, ordinary etc) and is either regular or irregular. WAB requires some 8-10 ratings at minimum for each individual unit. DBM needs only 5, and if the unit happens to be ordinary and regular, really only 3, since those are the default. In DBA, ratings are reduced to only 3. By any logical definition, WAB is clearly a less elegant design. And for all its added detail in terms of rating units, it does not produce a particularly sophisticated game. In fact, a typical WAB army, though it may employ several hundred figures, will often have a number of units comparable to a DBA army. In other words, you will have about as many units to make decisions about as in DBA. And in doing so, you will have no simulation whatsoever of a realistic command and control. Your units will magically all receive orders perfectly. Modern rules sets simulate command and control in many different ways, but all of them, even humble DBA, make sure that you cannot give orders perfectly to everyone all the time. And as a final cheapshot, note that in WAB being mounted on a horse makes a person LESS vulnerable to missile fire, not more. |
John the OFM | 03 May 2004 5:39 p.m. PST |
Ivan DBA, the Master said: "There are two kinds of fools. One says 'This is good because it is old.' The other says 'This is better because it is new.'" DBA equates Vikings with Roman Legionaries, and Assyrian chariots with French knights... More need not be said. |
Yettie | 03 May 2004 7:41 p.m. PST |
***Ivan DBA*[Hey! This isn't funny!! WAB IS a pathetic throwback to the 60's!! Read Donald Featherstone!]... ***Capt John Miller*[Guys,Let's not try to to the WAB vs DBA thing again, ok? Everyone has their own opinion on what makes a good game]...***mbsparta*[Thank you Ivan for pointing out how stupid and "pathetic" all those WAB players are. It all makes sense now. What a brilliant deductive mind! I can see why DBA is the game for you!..Mike B]... Guys not to pick any nits here but A) I am NOT TRYING TO START A FLAME WAR B) It_IS_FUNNY_ every time this topic comes up you'd think we were on the Ricky Lake show for a Hatfield-McCoy special family reunion. ***BEGIN SERMON*** Honestly for a hobby involving (mostly) adults playing with obscure 1" toys we as a group seem to very low tolerance for dissent. As crazy as the rest of the world sees us (and believe me they do) you'd think we could rally around our common interests...Can I geta Hallelujah...Yeah testify brothers!!! ***END SERMON*** But don't mind me, keep it up, I find this an endless source of amusement Bill AKA yettie..."Otis"
|
Yettie | 03 May 2004 7:46 p.m. PST |
And you know Donald Rumsfeld might look good (or at least a little less evil) in the smooth elegance of satin. yettie |
Capt John Miller | 03 May 2004 8:03 p.m. PST |
We'll have the Limited Edition minis of Phil Barker and Jervis Johnson in their favorite uniform. Of course, there would be the mounted and dismounted versions along with the ,"RUN AWAY RUN AWAY!" pose. The 2 armies facing off here? Why the 15mm DBA EIR army versus the 1500 point WAB EIR army. WHo will win? Another ROman civil war?! Forward for the EMporer! Marc Canu |
mbsparta | 04 May 2004 7:39 a.m. PST |
Simply brilliant Ivan! Mike B |
60th RAR | 04 May 2004 7:44 a.m. PST |
No OFM, IvanDBA is right. Who can go back and look at the primitive garbage of Buonarotti and Da Vinci after viewing the masterpieces cranked out yesterday by some crank with a canvas and paintball gun? weakest.argument.ever. For the record, I play and enjoy both systems and find both to give equally plausible results when playing historical scenarios or at least in-period opponents. Garbage in, garbage out. |
vtsaogames | 04 May 2004 10:55 a.m. PST |
"Since I wasn't born in the 60's, I certainly don't remember them!!" I dunno, I heard it said that anyone who remembers the 60's wasn't really there. |
Ivan DBA | 04 May 2004 11:10 a.m. PST |
Did you guys even read my posting? I didn't say WAB is bad because it is similar to older rules. You are right, that is a weak argument. What I was trying to say is that it is less elegant and requires unneccessary details and complications, while producing results that are at best no more realistic than more modern systems. To support this argument I used the example of the number of stats WAB requires to define a unit, versus the number required by DBM. Actually, I left out stats for weapons and armor saves, so the correct comparison is 10-12 stats for WAB, versus 3-5 for DBM. Does anyone here seriously believe that WAB is more realistic than DBM? Yet to achieve similar results, similar levels of realism, WAB requires far more details and special rules. Why? Because it is a primitive way of making rules, one that is concerned not with outcomes, but with details and representation. DBA, love it or hate it, is simply the modern set that carries the 'outcome' based argument to the extreme. It only models that which is strictly necessary to simulate a battle at the highest level. Personally, I find this compelling. I don't believe an ancient commander would know how much attrition his units were suffering until after the battle was over, if then. But as I said, DBA is the extreme. There are plenty of other decent, sophisticated rules sets out there that are just as realistic, (if not far more realistic) than WAB, and yet require far less attention to trivial details, and far less die-rolling. WAB's combat system is a dinosaur. Roll to hit, then roll to wound, then the enemy rolls his saves...then... he does the same thing back to you... and....repeat next round or two or three. Much of WAB games is spent with units locked together, rolling dice at each other. If you are the kind of person who gets a kick out of shoving two big mobs of figures together and rolling dice for an hour to see who wins, play WAB. Finally, why do we care? Because this hobby is very small. Because the ancients segment of it is of course even smaller. The more rules sets there are, the fewer opponents there are, as people tend to specialize, being willing to use only one, or at most two or three sets. When a portion of that small gaming population is sucked into a system that by any objective measure is simply less realistic and less fun, yes, I get annoyed, and I take it seriously. |
Inari7 | 04 May 2004 12:05 p.m. PST |
John Carroll Stated that DBA equates Vikings with Roman Legionaries, and Assyrian chariots with French knights... More need not be said I think to a lowly spearman in either era getting charged by French Knights or Assyrian Chariots would not make much of a diffrence it's the same result. Now French Knights charging Assyrian Chariots would be a diffent story....Doug |
60th RAR | 04 May 2004 12:15 p.m. PST |
I read your post, I'm just not sure your argument holds water for me. I find WAB a more elegant system than DBx with it's clunky language and myriad of troop types and grades. Yet, for all of the confusing grades and types, a roman blade is essentially the same as a HYW French one. As I said, I play and enjoy both games (although neither as much as I'd like to). They both have their drawbacks and I guess at the end of the day it all comes down to how much (or little) you like to roll dice or discuss obscure interpretations of the English language. |
Trevor | 04 May 2004 1:06 p.m. PST |
Ivan, In my experience, many, if not most, WAB players are perfectly aware of the short comings of the system and play the game anyway because they enjoy it. Therefore your assertion that WAB is less fun than other systems is clearly a very subjective appraisal. So, while I would agree with you that WAB is probably not significantly more realistic than any other set, to my mind it isn't significantly less realistic either and rules choice is pretty much based on what aspects of the history you like to see emphasised and the style you like to see it done. For me WAB provides a fun game despite my understanding that it is only that. Hence I find your rather condescending appraisal that I have been "sucked into" playing WAB a tad insulting. As to the supposed superiority of the DBx stable of rules, well I have to say you are deluding yourself. Take for example the ability of skirmishers to hold up heavy infantry with ease, the inability of light horse to fire at a distance, the whole mess that is the representation of ANE heavy cavalry as Kn(X)/Cav(S)/Kn(F), then there's Auxilia, whatever they are supposed to represent, and likewise Warbands bare little resemblance to their historical counterparts and then there's rear support by archers and the padding of commands with massed levies to add staying power, etc. etc. Hardly perfect eh! However I believe, like their WAB counterparts, most DBM players are intelligent enough to be able to identify these problems and there is, just like with WAB, an ongoing discussion of how to improve the system. If you don't believe me just try subscribing to the WABList, DBMList or DBMMList yahoo groups. So how about we just all admit we play toy soldiers and that our chosen rules just pander to our own prejudices and preferences. After all, if we were seriously interested in accurate representation of ancient warfare we wouldn't use lead figures stuck to cardboard now would we? Lastly if you want to have more opponents can I suggest you adopt a more catholic approach to gaming and spend less time trying to convince others of the error of their ways. best regards, Trev |
(Leftee) | 04 May 2004 6:21 p.m. PST |
If DBA is the same as DBR then I'd take bamboo shoots under the finger nails instead to save me the horror of attempting to read 3000 explanations of what was meant in each sentence. Co-authored with B. Clinton: 'Define the word 'the'. Armati, at least, is written in English/American - understanble for English speakers the world over. English/Barkerese on the other hand has whole websites created to plumb the depths of this cryptic language. Same small-table-rapid-results set with the added bonus of being comprehensible. Gets my vote. But frankly, so what. If someone were to offer to gamemaster DBA, DBM or WAB I wouldn't sniff in disdain; perhaps their enthusiasm would be infectious and their explanations sound allowing for a fun game? It's like Haggis, great to eat just don't ask to learn how it's made. Maybe DBA is the gaming equivalent of Haggis? |
Inari7 | 05 May 2004 6:08 a.m. PST |
If the game if fun play it! |
mbsparta | 05 May 2004 6:30 a.m. PST |
|
Tarzan | 05 May 2004 6:00 p.m. PST |
|
rankbajin | 06 May 2004 10:53 a.m. PST |
I think the WAB/DBx split is fairly obvious. WAB is based on the GW system which is essentially based on dice throws. Why ? Because it is primarily aimed at kids and kids always want to have a chance (if only a small one) that they will roll a 6 and save their favourite figure. DBx is trying for a more abstract system (hence the classification of troops by role within period rather than in an absolute sense), and one where tactics are more important than dice. There are plenty of things that are right and wrong about both systems. The number of dice rolls puts me off WAB (as does the prospect of painting 25mm figures !). The cryptic language puts a lot of people off DBx (I play DBA and DBM but DBR is by far the worst for obtuse language and complicated outcomes), and frankly knowing that certain armies are just hopeless against certain opponents regardless of your tactics can be a little disheartening. It's a pity that the basing for DBM/DBA and WAB doesn't allow people to play both sets of rules interchangably. Or you could just think of it as an excuse to buy a new army :)
|
Weasel | 06 May 2004 11:34 a.m. PST |
I find both sets to be not quite what I want to play. Both use an IGOUGO sequence, both rely extensively on dice rolls (DBA, oops, your army stands still except one unit, WAB, you charged, now roll 50 dice to see if you hit) I like reading the WAB books because they give me incentive to research new armies and periods, and because they are written in english. DBA seems like an obvious tournament game, and is definately easy on the pocket and time (12 stands in 6mm could be painted in an evening!) thus you can grab a few figures, paint and play with a minimum of fuss |
(Change Name) | 06 May 2004 9:05 p.m. PST |
"DBx is trying for a more abstract system (hence the classification of troops by role within period rather than in an absolute sense), and one where tactics are more important than dice." Which explains why DBA is typically known as "Dice Before Ability"? Can we say "Bullshit"? What IvanDBA and a few of the DBx supporters miss, is that DBx is basically a turd. You can dress it up, pour perfume on it, call it a rose -- but it's still a turd. The rules are poorly written. The game is fundamentally boring. Results depend more on die rolls than any tactical ability. It has all of the realism of a game of Risk. The rules themselves appear to appeal to pretentious jerks. And it is just as much fun as a visit to a proctologist. I stayed away from Ancients gaming for years because I did not want to play with turds. |
Inari7 | 06 May 2004 10:56 p.m. PST |
Zarquon You’re the type of person that would keep me away from the system you play.
Most Dbx'ers I know are some of the nicest people to play with. I can also say that about the WAB/WFB/40K people to.
Most of the people who play miniatures are some of the nicest people.
Then there are people like you who criticize what other people play, and even go to the extent of calling their game and the people who play them names.
You call DBA players’ “pretentious jerks” that is like the pot calling the kettle black.
Did you read your own post?
What do you think you sound like?
You called DBA” Dice before Ability” WHY?
We only use one opposed Die roll to determine combat outcome where WAB uses a handful of dice, then the defender rolls a handful to determine combat outcome then they roll a morale check. I don’t think that’s bad, but don’t call our game a die rolling game where we use very few die rolls. It is true our Die rolls are important, but what game do you play that is not dependent on die rolls?
As for tactics you must use tactics to play all games, some have more opportunities and some less. I think DBA has as many opportunities for the use of tactics as most other ancient miniature games.
I think all the games we play have good and bad mechanics just don’t start calling names it just shows how uneducated you are.
Next time you want to criticize a game, write insightful comments to support the reasons you don’t like the game, and provide points and counter points to vindicate your point of view.
Or you could like my 8 year old daughter start calling names.
|
Rudysnelson | 07 May 2004 6:23 a.m. PST |
Zarquon based on the number of people which play the systems at conventions which I cited earlier in this post, it would seem that your opinion is invalid and not supported by factual data. Inari7 is correct about your comments. I am sure that we will laugh about them at the next show that we see each other. Some systems are 'introductory' systems whose following has grown. I veiw WAB and DBA as such systems. But the number of groups and players who have switched primary systems from WAB to DBA is far greater than DBA to WAB. |
(Change Name) | 07 May 2004 5:11 p.m. PST |
Inari: You sound like the little kid who cried "it all started when he hit me back!" This thread, was basically one where the DBx crowd continued their same tired old tripe. I suspect most of these DBM players have never really even played WAB, but just seem content to drone on and on with the same old drivel. Some of these posts were deliberately offensive and insulting. Mine was the first really anti-DBx remark (well maybe John Carroll was the first), and my comments were8 appropriately rude, crude and offensive. Given the tenor of this thread, nothing else was appropriate. As for setting out the problems with DBx, I and others have done this ad nauseum. Why repeat it? The simple truth is that most people who are playing other rules, including WAB, Armati, Ancient Warfare, and just about every other set here, has tried DBx at some point and found it seriously lacking. In fact, in some cases, these gamers may even feel that the person who was pushing the game just handed them a turd. My experience with DBx players is the exact opposite of what you describe. I have found the majority of them to be arrogant twits. The majority of their postings on this thread just prove my point. For the most part, I would rather spend my time with other gamers. |
(Change Name) | 07 May 2004 5:21 p.m. PST |
Rudy: Isn't it rather silly to claim that any opinion is not valid? I did not purport to set out any facts or statistics. Comments like DBx is a turd, boring and unrealistic are simple statements of opinion with which someone can agree or disagree. There is no way of objectively proving or disproving these comments. Thus your "statistical" analysis is a red herring. (Keep in mind there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.) We obviously are not attending the same conventions or associating with the same groups of gamers. I for one, cannot identify one gamer who has switched from WAB to DBx. I can name a few who have gone from WAB to Warrior, or Might of Arms, or Medieval Warfare. But none to DBx. And I can name quite a number who have gone from DBx to Anything Else. In fact most of the WAB players I know, have opinions which are similar to mine. The difference is that they generally do not state them as strongly as I do. So you can laugh all you want, because it is obvious that our paths will never cross (again). |
Inari7 | 07 May 2004 8:18 p.m. PST |
If DBA is so bad then why is it the most popular 15mm game?
http://theminiaturespage.com/rules/anc/voteancients/scale15mm.html
You are entitled to your opinion, but why sink to the level of name calling?
It just makes you sound childish and immature.
You also stated that "The simple truth is that most people who are playing other rules, including WAB, Armati, Ancient Warfare, and just about every other set here, has tried DBx at some point and found it seriously lacking"
Most people play the DBx games that’s why so many have switched. You cannot please everyone with just one rule set. I have found that I like most games. There are very few games I would not play, and have a good time with.
The only problem I would find a game would have is the players who play it.
All games have their arrogant twits. DBx has more twits because more people play it. WAB have players who put down other games, and call names, but I don't judge the whole game by just a few twits who play it. I just wish you would do the same.
|
Rudysnelson | 07 May 2004 8:30 p.m. PST |
Zarquon, The use of facts to support any argument is fundamental element of debate. Whether the the arena is a school, political in nature or even occuring in the business realm, any position must be supported by facts. So I do not feel that my comment was 'silly'. A good debate between varying 'opinions' are only made better when supported by facts such as I cited. The use of deragatory terms instead of facts only weakens your position in a discussion. |