[X] My Assistant

[Triggvi]

"I didn't finish reading the book." "You stopped reading at the word 'pig's'? It wasn't even the end of the sentence."

was that a personal attack? I hope I am reading that wrong.

I agree that it comes to the GM to decide if he wants it in his game.

[Mooncrow]

was that a personal attack? I hope I am reading that wrong.

I agree that it comes to the GM to decide if he wants it in his game.

Google is your friend

[Yerameyahu]

Ha, in what universe could that be a personal attack? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[Badmoodguy88]

Is delta grade bioware harder to destroy, malfunction or more costly to repair? Because obviously type-o would not add those effects. That's what I thought that only for essence part was all about.

[Yerameyahu]

Yes, it is. Augmentation, p127.

[Karoline]

Is delta grade bioware harder to destroy, malfunction or more costly to repair? Because obviously type-o would not add those effects. That's what I thought that only for essence part was all about.

Very correct, but it also technically means (because it uses i.e. instead of e.g.) that 'able to be used in something that regenerates' is another of those effects that does not get added. A small difference, but that is usually what separates RAW from RAI.

[KarmaInferno]

"This damn cold... Don't worry. I could cut open your chest and sew a dead cat in there. You wouldn't get an infection. Not with the antibiotics I'll shoot into you."

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I would have to hazard a guess that a vampire might be a little choosy about which doc he'd go to to get bioware installed. Someone reliable. Someone who has a rep for keeping patient confidentiality. Someone off the books.

If the vamp was really smart, he'd engineer it so that if anything bad happened to him as a result of any of the doc's actions, bad bad things would happen to the doc. And make this clear to the doc before going under the knife.




-karma

[Rystefn]

and i.e. is 'this is exactly what it means and nothing else'

No it doesn't. Latin fail. I.E. means "that is." It is a clarification. It in no way means that it is the entirety of the meaning and nothing else could possibly be included. It is clarifying that it only counts as delta for direct interaction with the body not for such things as cost or availability. Nothing about that sentence so much as implies that it shouldn't count for Regen rejecting it.

[Karoline]

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/abbrevi...ns/f/ievseg.htm

[Yerameyahu]

It is indeed clarification. Specifically, restatement. That implies that the new phrasing fully replaces the previous.

[Rystefn]

Yes, exactly. Kindly show me anywhere in that which states that i.e. means "exactly that and nothing else."

I assure you it says no such thing, and even if it did, since when was about.com the authority on either Latin or English?

[Rystefn]

It is indeed clarification. Specifically, restatement. That implies that the new phrasing fully replaces the previous.

Were that the case, the previous statement serves no purpose and would not be included, rendering the the entire concept of i.e. completely unnecessary. No, it implies nothing of the sort. It is clarification. If you want to act as though it is a restatement fully replacing the previous, then you are using nonstandard English, and you may as well say that i.e. means frog-farts, which causes the sentence to mean the exact opposite of what it says, because you're just making up your own rules anyway at that point.

[Laodicea]

You guys should keep arguing about this. Someone is WRONG on the INTERNET and all they need is your fiery guidance to set them straight.

Back on topic: Type-o is really expensive. Vampire is realy expensive. The two of them together make a character with very little BP left for anything like skills or Wares. For 400bp, it's not overpowered. Depending on your GMs rewards of cash/karma, it might have a great deal of potential to be overpowered, but its not, out of the box. I think it's fine. I'd allow it in my game.

[Yerameyahu]

That's entirely incorrect, Rystefn. There's no reason that restatement makes the previous statement 'serve no purpose'.

[Rystefn]

That's entirely incorrect, Rystefn. There's no reason that restatement makes the previous statement 'serve no purpose'.

If it "fully replaces" the previous statement, then there is no reason for the previous statement to still exist. The fact that it does shows us that the latter statement does not, in fact, "fully replace" it. As a writer, when I "fully replace" one statement with another, it is with the delete key. If the previous statement still exists and is still being used in thew work in question, then it has not been "fully replaced" at all. It has been clarified, but not "fully replaced."

[Yerameyahu]

That's not what that phrase means. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

There's nothing wrong with about.com; don't be mean to things simply for disagreeing with you. In any case, every reference you check will give that same meaning for 'i.e.'.

[Rystefn]

That's not what that phrase means. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

There's nothing wrong with about.com; don't be mean to things simply for disagreeing with you. In any case, every reference you check will give that same meaning for 'i.e.'.

Which meaning? The one on about.com, which does not disagree with me, or the one you assert? They are different, you know. I've seen no reference anywhere, including the linked about.com article, which attempted to claim i.e. means "exactly that and nothing else" except this thread. In fact, the about.com you think disagrees with me specifically says that i.e. indicates a clarification, which is what I said. Really. Go look again. I'll wait.

[Yerameyahu]

Neither. I was referring to your repeated redefining of 'fully replace' to create a straw man.

And you're doing it again. I never said that 'i.e.' wasn't for clarification. I think you'll find that I explicitly stated that it is. So is 'e.g.'; it's irrelevant, and no one is disputing it.

[Rystefn]

LoL... Yes, I'm the one redefining things. I mean, when I "fully replace" the wiper blades on a car, the old ones are generally still there as well. And when you "fully replace" a light bulb, I suppose you leave the old one in the socket, too?

Of course accusing me of attacking a straw man while doing so yourself is the icing on the hypocrisy cake here, since I never accused you of saying i.e. wasn't for clarification. I accused you of narrowing the type of clarification so much as to make it a waste to have even said the previous bit in the first place, which you did.

[Mooncrow]

LoL... Yes, I'm the one redefining things. I mean, when I "fully replace" the wiper blades on a car, the old ones are generally still there as well. And when you "fully replace" a light bulb, I suppose you leave the old one in the socket, too?

Of course accusing me of attacking a straw man while doing so yourself is the icing on the hypocrisy cake here, since I never accused you of saying i.e. wasn't for clarification. I accused you of narrowing the type of clarification so much as to make it a waste to have even said the previous bit in the first place, which you did.

"Fully replace" was perhaps poor wording, but what he's saying is essentially correct.

[Rystefn]

"Fully replace" was perhaps poor wording, but what he's saying is essentially correct.

I disagree. What he's saying is incorrect. "Fully replace" may have been poor wording, but it is no more and no less incorrect than "exactly this and nothing more." I.e. does not mean that, and it never has. It indicates a rewording for clarity. An anticipation that there may be some confusion as to the meaning of the previous statement because it was somewhat ambiguous (or because its intended audience have a well deserved reputation for insisting that words mean things they clearly do not mean), perhaps.

Allow me to draw a parallel, if you will. Say we were talking about the rules of American football, rather than ShadowRun. Say further that the expanded rule book had a passage that read as follows: "When playing the Two Completes for a First Down variation of the game, the offensive team gains first downs in a different manner, i.e. they do not gain a first down for progressing ten yards." Does this mean that gaining first downs in a different manner means only that you do not gain first downs for progressing ten yards and nothing more? Or does it mean that that there is also a different way to gain first downs? By your reading, in the Two Completes for a First Down variation of American football, there is no way for the offensive team to gain a first down.

[Yerameyahu]

Those are both physical objects, not parts of sentences. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Mooncrow]

I disagree. What he's saying is incorrect. "Fully replace" may have been poor wording, but it is no more and no less incorrect than "exactly this and nothing more." I.e. does not mean that, and it never has. It indicates a rewording for clarity. An anticipation that there may be some confusion as to the meaning of the previous statement because it was somewhat ambiguous (or because its intended audience have a well deserved reputation for insisting that words mean things they clearly do not mean), perhaps.

Allow me to draw a parallel, if you will. Say we were talking about the rules of American football, rather than ShadowRun. Say further that the expanded rule book had a passage that read as follows: "When playing the Two Completes for a First Down variation of the game, the offensive team gains first downs in a different manner, i.e. they do not gain a first down for progressing ten yards." Does this mean that gaining first downs in a different manner means only that you do not gain first downs for progressing ten yards and nothing more? Or does it mean that that there is also a different way to gain first downs? By your reading, in the Two Completes for a First Down variation of American football, there is no way for the offensive team to gain a first down.

I wish I knew more about football, so I could tell if you are using i.e. correctly.

Time for some research, I suppose.

[Yerameyahu]

You should be using 'e.g.' in that example. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Mooncrow]

Ok, found the rule you were talking about. In this case, the author would be using i.e. incorrectly. You use i.e. to clarify or specify, and you cannot do that to only half of the statement's idea.

The correct form for your example would be:

"When playing the Two Completes for a First Down variation of the game, the offensive team gains first downs in a different manner, i.e. instead of gaining a first down for progressing ten yards, they gain a first down for two pass completions."

Of course, it's not a very good place for an i.e. to begin with, but there you have it.