glyphstrip FAQ button
Frequently Asked Forum Questions
 Search the HBO News Archives

Any All Exact 
Search the Halo Updates DBs

Halo Halo2 
Search Older Posts on This Forum:
Posts on Current Forum | Archived Posts

Looks like I've got some explaining to do...
Posted By: paulmarv <>Date: 2/1/11 2:54 p.m.

In Response To: Summa Canonica (Cody Miller)

I have just read this entire thread, word-for-word. Let me just first say... wow. I did not foresee such a reaction. I mean, I did hope for some debate (I'll point to Addendum the third for that), but the direction this discussion has taken is certainly unexpected. Although I am displeased with many of these posts, I must remind myself that I mustn't be offended since these are only responses to a work I wrote, therefore placing any fault on me, unless one is just being unreasonable. With that said, I present to you:

A Response to the Reaction to Summa Canonica

I. OVERTURE, just kidding. I wouldn't do that. But there are few things I'd certainly like to address, and people that deserve a reply. Before I begin, I'd like to say that I am grateful for this current necessity for me to post here because it served as the final push to get me to sign up and start posting here (even though I apparently had already made an account), which I have been meaning to do for a while. I love the forums, but there is by nature a high "noise vs. signal" ratio, as it is called, which can sometimes impede the discussion I'd like to have. Private groups serve to fix this (someone already mentioned I'm a TMA frequenter - that is correct), but all Bnet forums are not equal either. The Universe forum maintains a better record than most of the others, so I'd always spend time there too. I will reply to my thread there, but at the moment, I am focusing my efforts here as this discussion seems most likely for immediate productivity and because of Mr. O'Connor's presence here which presents a unique spin on things that I also should address.

First and foremost, I need to talk about these suspicions fraudulent/satiric intent. I am not a troll; I have been on Bnet for almost three years upholding a clean record with 0 bans or warnings - a reputation that I not only care about on Bnet, but also among the entire community. As far as I am able to think right now, I would never do anything to damage that reputation. I didn't take this from somewhere else and replace words, I didn't use and autogenerated crap or whatnot, and none of this was written by anybody else but me, with the exception of a few quotations. (I believe there are two of them in the Summa) That being said, I am serious, and I do not intend to satire canonical Purists and fervidly anti-343 xenophobes, even though that'd be a little bit tempting. Know that I do not harbor negative or betrayed feelings for questioning this; I understand I've never posted on here before, and most of you I've never even met anywhere. (Even though a few of you I became acquainted with back with HBBO... God rest its soul) So, a 29 page essay, admittedly sparse references to Halo from a quick skim; I understand. I'd react the same way, and I understand that this form of discourse is a bit strange. But it is as real and valid as it claims to be. I can prove, also, that I'm the author (or at least who controls the website) if anyone wants me to.

Alright, now I can get onto the meat of the issue here. Here is my big problem that I need to get out of the way: the accusations regarding the style and length of my "mega-rant" (I'll call it that to be lighthearted about it). Like some of the other unfair accusations in this thread, it is hard and redundant to reply to someone who hasn't read the entire thing. This I regret: I foolishly excluded some sort of disclaimer at the beginning that said "If you don't read the entire thing, please don't complain to me." I understand the length; it actually took me about an hour to read when I sat down I went back through it to fix spelling/grammar errors. So, I will entertain these accusations and provide a general defense. I anticipated these specific accusations, and therefore wrote what I did in the second addendum at the end. It's really short; please read. It builds off of what I say in "Idealism and Implicitness" and "Question of Identity", but at that point you should just read the entire thing. Please do that - that's a request. But when you accuse me, it is sort of an accusation. Again, I'm cool about it; I'm not offended, and I'm just going to ignore statements like "guy who wrote this Summa Canonica needs professional attention" (Quirel - I appreciated your specific criticism before this and I'll get to that). I wrote how I wrote to A. communicate the info I needed to in B. the most concise way possible, WITHOUT sacrificing detail, specificity, and important subtle meaning. I chose my words very carefully; there's a big difference between "talk" and "speak" in popular usage the way I see it. Granted, I had a little fun. I had a little fun with the name and structure on the first page, making it seem like it was something much more important than it really was (although I do think it is importance) by using fancy Latin mottos and throws to St. Aquinas, etc. The fun ended there. (Even though it did have the effect of establishing the style and effect I was going for). Let's actually examine the meat, the body text, and not some affected legalese ostentation that I obviously had fun with on page 1. It ended at "Overture... to be oversimplified" and continued in seriousness until the end of the "mega-rant". If in the actual content, I included language or a word that was unnecessarily verbose and could have been condensed without shrinking the meaning... I made and error and do apologize. I am not perfect. The ironic thing is, to all you people who criticized me for this but didn't read the Summa in entirety, I discuss the utter uselessness of choosing a language other than the common vernacular for the communication of ideas. That was part of one of my biggest arguments! Bernard... You seem like a really smart guy. I know we think alike because in your critique of my work, your argument was so similar (in your last on-topic post) that you practically to it straight from SC! I DO NOT believe that; I am not accusing you, but I just think it is funny how similar you "word games"/"perversion of language" argument is so similar to what I said in SC. I addressed this argument of yours. I addressed the argument of "well, this guy is just making an aspirational definition of THC and then arguing THAT canon which is a useless philosophical exercise...". Just read the entire thing, and then I'll be happy to hear why I'm wrong. Back to the topic of my apparent bad style, I must admit I am somewhat embarrassed. For me, whenever I see a paper or something that was obviously written by some kid but tries to sound all smart by thesaurusing every single word... it just looks like the most stupid and juvenile thing in the world. Its awkward. And it is wicked obvious that this kid was just using a thesaurus to find longer words to make him look smart... which makes him look dumber, but most of all, makes him look young and immature. So, that this perception is taken in regards to my work is a source of embarrassment to me, however I know that this is inaccurate. I did not slave over this; I have a life. I started this thing over 1.5 years ago. I would work on it when I'm being driven somewhere in the car, when I got some free time, or when I could spend a day or two off from everything else. I chose my words carefully. I did not sit there and try to make them sound "fancy" because I know how stupid that sounds. But then I read Erasmus for example, and I'm just struck by how ingenious the use of language is. Not just words, but constructions. I profess: I will likely never be that good a writing, nor do I think I am the best writer as I stand. But I just spent more time perfecting sentences that a better writer would have needed to. So you can attack SC on that account, but until you've read the entire thing and can find an instance where I used an unnecessarily verbose word (btw I'm sure you could, a few times), then I'm not very interested in entertaining that discussion. But your complaint is heard and I have a completely open mind.

Quirel, you mentioned some specifics which I appreciate.
1. Most of your "improvements" take away from the careful and close meaning
2. Granted, that was redundant. I did so to make the concept apparent and succinct.
3. I professed to nonstandard writing styles (you probably didn't see that part); and I'm not the first one to use huge sentences. (I use ; and , to signify the location and extent of clauses)
4. I had a laugh, but perhaps those lists could have been more succinct. Thanks.
5. I am not overly religious, but I am principled and believe in ultimate truth.
6. You attack the principle of Specific Reflexivity but with no substantiation; I am fascinated by this but ask that you actually read this before explaining your defense.
7. I did NOT come out and say that is what happened with the Halo 3 Legendary ending. It was a suspicion that I admit might have been a bit too harsh. That whole section was additional and not central to the policy; I went out of my way to defend my inclusion of that section.
8. Thanks for the quote, but I don't understand.

Hang in there, I'm almost done. Regarding my email to Cody: when I first some HRINC, I read everything and got a good laugh of some of the criticisms of Reach up there. I agree, some things were just stupid. You will not find another more supportive of the Halo Trilogy over Reach than me. But, to call it entirely acanonical is too far. To handle situations like this, I point to "iii. Reasonable Manifestation" and Part V in SC. I didn't get the joke; it agreed with your content which was mostly sound and coherent, as Narc pointed out.

As for Frankie, I fear you might have got the wrong message if you read the document. While I'm at it, I will beg that you do read the document. Heck, I was actually going to print off a copy and mail it to you guys, but now I estimate that this will be unnecessary. I have faith in you. I know you're a cool guy. I don't think you're evil, no matter how I portrayed 343. (Which was, by designe, a bit exaggerated) I don't think you're there to milk it and get rich; I know you really care. For that reason, please don't dismiss me or my argument. I respond very well to logic and reason; I have put together my thoughts in such a way, and to be met with "the hand" does not go over very well with me - not that that is what you have done or intend to do. Just read it, and most importantly, don't be offended. I had to exercise this to a degree no greater than what I am asking of you when I read through this thread. Hey, maybe 343 ain't so bad after all. I'm all open to that! I can promise everybody here an open mind. Such, Legends really ticked me off, but you know, Cryptum and Evolutions were excellent. I am most pleased. If that is the direction you guys will go in... I'm all for it. I wish you luck, if that is the case. But you won't be successful in retaining what Bungie has made unless you understand some things, which is why I'd love for you to read and fully comprehend my "mega-rant" because it backs up what many of us think. But at least around here, it looks like I'm speaking mostly for myself.

One last thing. I haven't really even talked about why I wrote this thing in the first place. Here the biggest reason: I became endlessly annoyed by frustrating professions of abandonment and despair. "343 has gone downhill and now Bungie... I'm jumping off the Halo bandwagon before it is too late" "Look at all this crap from 343... and now Bungie has lowered their quality too? I'm outta here" I've observed this many times, and those statements anger me a bit. Those who speak them need to learn that no matter what 343 or Bungie or ANYONE produces, it cannot negatively affect the True Halo Canon - whatever it is. Yeah, I know what you're all going to say to that statement. I've heard 'em all, and I've addressed them all in SC so people hopefully won't say things like that anymore. So, to address the arguments here would be redundant and unnecessarily lengthening a post that I now realize is far too long, over 10% of SC itself. Just please read Summa Canonica, and accuse me then. Of course I'd prefer if you do it in a civil manner, but in the end, I'd rather be right and corrected than wrong and confident. Thanks.

Message Index


Summa CanonicaCody Miller 1/30/11 8:22 p.m.
     Re: Summa CanonicaHyokin 1/30/11 8:26 p.m.
     Re: Summa CanonicaPkmnrulz240 1/30/11 8:26 p.m.
           Also...Pkmnrulz240 1/30/11 8:29 p.m.
                 Re: Also...Cody Miller 1/30/11 8:50 p.m.
                       Re: Also...Stephen L. (SoundEffect) 1/30/11 9:41 p.m.
                             Re: Also...sithhead 1/30/11 11:04 p.m.
                 Re: Also...SonofMacPhisto 1/30/11 9:41 p.m.
                       Re: Also...Pkmnrulz240 1/30/11 9:42 p.m.
                             Re: Also...SonofMacPhisto 1/30/11 9:48 p.m.
     amazing *NM*kidtsunami 1/30/11 8:46 p.m.
     WtfAvateur 1/30/11 8:57 p.m.
           Actually...NartFOpc 1/30/11 10:46 p.m.
                 Re: Actually...Buttskunk 1/30/11 11:05 p.m.
     Utterly GloriousHawaiian Pig 1/30/11 10:47 p.m.
     I don't understand people sometimes.uberfoop 1/30/11 11:21 p.m.
           Ahhhhh.... my brain!!!! *NM*Chris101b 1/30/11 11:35 p.m.
           Re: I don't understand people sometimes.Hawaiian Pig 1/31/11 12:41 a.m.
     Paul Marv, eh?Salazar14 1/31/11 12:04 a.m.
     I am an aspiring author...Quirel 1/31/11 12:30 a.m.
           The Turn of the Screwloosetopleybird 1/31/11 10:22 a.m.
     Re: Summa CanonicaNarcogen 1/31/11 2:20 a.m.
           Re: Summa CanonicaCody Miller 1/31/11 11:54 a.m.
                 Re: Summa CanonicaNarcogen 2/1/11 12:18 a.m.
                       Re: Summa CanonicaCody Miller 2/1/11 1:49 a.m.
                             Re: Summa CanonicaThe Loot 2/1/11 3:41 a.m.
                             Re: Summa CanonicaNarcogen 2/1/11 10:00 p.m.
     Okay, wow.BlueNinja 1/31/11 3:03 a.m.
     Re: Summa CanonicaLouis Wu 1/31/11 3:46 a.m.
           Re: Summa CanonicaQuirel 1/31/11 10:44 a.m.
           Re: Summa CanonicaHawaiian Pig 1/31/11 3:46 p.m.
                 Re: Summa CanonicaLouis Wu 1/31/11 3:50 p.m.
                       Re: Summa CanonicaHawaiian Pig 1/31/11 5:28 p.m.
                             Re: Summa CanonicaQuirel 1/31/11 5:44 p.m.
     Re: Summa CanonicaMorhek 1/31/11 5:10 a.m.
     HahaArchilen 1/31/11 8:41 a.m.
     Re: Summa CanonicaFrankie 1/31/11 12:04 p.m.
           Re: Summa CanonicaAvateur 1/31/11 12:23 p.m.
                 Re: Summa CanonicaFrankie 1/31/11 12:24 p.m.
                       Re: Summa CanonicaCody Miller 1/31/11 12:36 p.m.
                             Re: Summa CanonicaFrankie 1/31/11 12:51 p.m.
                                   Re: Summa CanonicaStephen L. (SoundEffect) 1/31/11 1:24 p.m.
                                         Re: Summa CanonicaBry 1/31/11 1:45 p.m.
                                               Re: Summa CanonicaStephen L. (SoundEffect) 1/31/11 1:47 p.m.
                                         Re: Summa CanonicaLouis Wu 1/31/11 1:54 p.m.
                                               Re: Summa CanonicaStephen L. (SoundEffect) 1/31/11 2:29 p.m.
                                                     Re: Summa CanonicaCody Miller 1/31/11 2:32 p.m.
                                                           Re: Summa CanonicaThe Loot 1/31/11 2:44 p.m.
                                                                 Re: Summa CanonicaSonofMacPhisto 1/31/11 3:10 p.m.
                                                                 Re: Summa CanonicaCody Miller 1/31/11 3:14 p.m.
                                                              *NM*The Loot 1/31/11 3:43 p.m.
                                                                             It isn't?Quirel 1/31/11 5:14 p.m.
                                                                                   Re: It isn't?General Battuta 1/31/11 6:54 p.m.
                                                                                         Re: It isn't?Quirel 1/31/11 7:32 p.m.
                                                                 Re: Summa CanonicaStephen L. (SoundEffect) 1/31/11 5:49 p.m.
                                   Re: Summa CanonicaGeneral Vagueness 1/31/11 2:54 p.m.
                                         Re: Summa CanonicaHyokin 1/31/11 4:44 p.m.
                                               Re: Summa CanonicaGeneral Vagueness 1/31/11 5:24 p.m.
                                                     Re: Summa CanonicaHyokin 1/31/11 5:35 p.m.
                                                           Re: Summa CanonicaGeneral Vagueness 1/31/11 5:38 p.m.
                                                                 Re: Summa CanonicaHyokin 1/31/11 5:43 p.m.
                                                           Re: Summa CanonicaBernard Strauss 1/31/11 6:20 p.m.
                                                                 Re: Summa CanonicaHyokin 1/31/11 6:31 p.m.
                                         Re: Summa CanonicaFrankie 1/31/11 5:14 p.m.
                                               Re: Summa CanonicaQuirel 1/31/11 5:29 p.m.
                                                     Re: Summa CanonicaGeneral Vagueness 1/31/11 5:37 p.m.
                                                           Re: Summa CanonicaFrankie 1/31/11 5:45 p.m.
                                                                 Re: Summa CanonicaJoe Duplessie (SNIPE 316) 2/1/11 5:16 a.m.
                                                     Re: Summa CanonicaThe Loot 1/31/11 6:13 p.m.
                                                           Re: Summa CanonicaQuirel 1/31/11 6:42 p.m.
                                                                 Re: Summa CanonicaGeneral Battuta 1/31/11 6:56 p.m.
                                                     Re: Summa CanonicaFrankie 1/31/11 7:03 p.m.
                                                           Team Edward or Team Jacob...?Devil Mingy 1/31/11 8:13 p.m.
                                                                 Team Edward!Hyokin 1/31/11 8:30 p.m.
                                                           Re: Summa CanonicaThe Loot 2/1/11 12:14 a.m.
     Re: Summa CanonicaBernard Strauss 1/31/11 12:37 p.m.
           Re: Summa CanonicaFrankie 1/31/11 12:49 p.m.
                 Re: Summa CanonicaBernard Strauss 1/31/11 1:31 p.m.
                       Re: Summa CanonicaFrankie 1/31/11 1:38 p.m.
                             Re: Summa CanonicaFrankie 1/31/11 1:39 p.m.
                                   HBO: We're old school, yo. *NM*Hyokin 1/31/11 1:48 p.m.
                                         Re: HBO: Word *NM*Schedonnardus 1/31/11 3:08 p.m.
                                               Re: HBO: WordHyokin 1/31/11 3:44 p.m.
                       Re: Summa CanonicaBeckx 1/31/11 1:38 p.m.
                       Re: Summa Canonicaelessar787 1/31/11 1:48 p.m.
           Re: Summa CanonicaBernard Strauss 1/31/11 3:36 p.m.
           dude...Hawaiian Pig 1/31/11 3:53 p.m.
                 Re: dude...Bernard Strauss 1/31/11 4:24 p.m.
                       Re: dude...Hawaiian Pig 1/31/11 5:30 p.m.
     My poor brain....Sl'askia 2/1/11 12:01 p.m.
     Looks like I've got some explaining to do...paulmarv 2/1/11 2:54 p.m.
           tl;drbluerunner 2/1/11 3:08 p.m.
                 Re: tl;drpaulmarv 2/1/11 3:17 p.m.
           Sorry...Sl'askia 2/1/11 6:33 p.m.
                 Re: Sorry...paulmarv 2/1/11 8:22 p.m.
                       Re: Sorry...Sl'askia 2/1/11 11:35 p.m.
                             Re: Sorry...Leviathan 2/2/11 12:57 a.m.
                                   Re: Sorry...Sl'askia 2/2/11 9:56 a.m.
                                         Naw, it was pretty spot on, I'd say. :P *NM*Leviathan 2/2/11 10:57 a.m.
                             Re: Sorry...paulmarv 2/2/11 8:56 a.m.
                                   Re: Sorry...Sl'askia 2/2/11 10:35 a.m.
                                         Re: Sorry...paulmarv 2/2/11 12:16 p.m.
           Re: Looks like I've got some explaining to do...General Vagueness 2/1/11 8:10 p.m.
                 Re: Looks like I've got some explaining to do...paulmarv 2/1/11 8:29 p.m.
                       Re: Looks like I've got some explaining to do...General Vagueness 2/1/11 8:42 p.m.
                             Re: Looks like I've got some explaining to do...paulmarv 2/1/11 9:07 p.m.
                                   Re: Looks like I've got some explaining to do...General Vagueness 2/1/11 9:20 p.m.
                                         Re: Looks like I've got some explaining to do...paulmarv 2/2/11 8:57 a.m.

contact us

The HBO Forum Archive is maintained with WebBBS 4.33.