Very Disappointed....

cthia wrote:The problem was that Maxx read too much into the guys post and was nitpicking. I chose to nitpick Maxx, because Maxx should have known better. That the guy was only speaking from his own world.

Maxx wrote:Then he needs to state that.

He did state it Maxx. It is implied. And it still stands that it is a fact that HE did not find it an enjoyable read. There was no need for you to take it any further than that, to make a mountain out of a molehill. I've been trying to get people to loosen up, take off their gunbelts and stop drawing faster than a drunk in the wild west.

Maxx wrote:He DID state it as an absolute,

No. He did NOT Maxx. Unless you truly think that b4ndit truly thinks that no one will or has enjoyed the book. And that no one will, simply because he says so.

MaxxQ wrote:and context means squat.

Patience brings the truth to light. If context does not matter, then reading is meaningless.

Why b4ndit? Why castrate his post "out of context." Why not begin with she who created this thread, who wrote...

pbplace wrote:...

I am very disappointed in the new Honorverse book. I wasted my money on a retelling of the same story that was told in the last four books. Shadow of Victory should have started from the end of Cauldron of Ghosts, with Michelle showing up to kick Mesa butt. Instead it begins BEFORE the battle of manticore and introduces TOO MANY new (and unnecessary) characters. If Weber has run out of ideas, he should stop writing the books. I have loved this series from the beginning, but will not be buying any more.
Carolyn

She states that as fact—even though she didn't use the word fact. Yet we all know that it is simply how she feels. I have immensely enjoyed every single one of the mainline books. I think each of them are amongst the best things since the written word. When people say that certain ones are not, I know that they mean FOR THEM! No need to excrete bricks.

Another example. When kzt makes this statement...

kzt wrote:It's still better than that awful book. To start with; David writes lots of things well, romance isn't one of them.

Firstly, we all know which book and why he dislikes it. He's made it pretty clear. Yet, I adore the book. No need for me to excrete bricks at kzt for stating his fact when he reads it. And there is no need for me to believe in some silly notion that kzt thinks that this fact for him is fact for everyone. There is no reason for kzt or b4ndit to give an "opinion" as to whether they liked the book. "It is my opinion that SOV or At All Costs has not been an enjoyable read for me." Why do they have to have an opinion on whether the book was an enjoying read for them? Don't they know?

I am gobsmacked that kzt feels that way. I understand that Weber doesn't cause the butterflies in the pit of kzt's stomach like true love and romance does. Yet for me, and probably for roseandheather as well, he does. The relationships in some of his books made me cry like a baby swimming in excrement. Fantastic writing. As far as I am concerned, one need look no further for the quill of great romance and love than On Basilisk Station. After reading On Basilisk Station I am truly gobsmacked that kzt can make that statement. Yet I realize that for him it is as true as "he lives" is true. If I were to respond to his post, I'd simply say that I disagree. That I think he writes romance rather well. I have exhausted tear ducts to prove it.

MaxxQ wrote:He did NOT say that, for HIMSELF the book was not a very enjoyable read.

He didn't have to in this case Maxx. It was implied. I think he is aware that some people enjoyed it.

MaxxQ wrote:You call it nitpicking, I call it getting your point across accurately. NOT ONCE, until he amended what he actually meant to say (and even that drifted into speculation later), did he say, IN THAT PARTICULAR POST, that it was not a good read FOR HIM. It was simply, "It's a fact that it was not an enjoyable read." And the proceeded to pull out the logical fallacy that I called him on.

Relating to another thread, I could say that it's a fact that SUVs are the worst invention ever made. Is that a fact? To me, or to anyone else? No, it is unarguably NOT. It is simply an opinion. If you want to argue semantics, then yes, it's a fact to me (or him), but with the condition that the qualifier "to me" (or something similar) is/must be added. I can't read people's minds, and it's even worse in teh interwebz.

It would be a fact to you if you meant it. Especially if I were a car dealer trying to sell you one.

You say that I am arguing semantics. But you are arguing intent and disregarding context.

Here is a book => BOOK.

It is true that some say the book is an enjoyable read.
It is true that some say the book is not an enjoyable read.

Which is it?

It is both because there is only one absolute.

It is both toilet paper to some and a treasure to others.

One man's trash is another man's treasure.

cthia wrote:

MaxxQ wrote:and context means squat.

Patience brings the truth to light. If context does not matter, then reading is meaningless.

I see you managed to trip my booby trap. The IMPLIED qualifier I left out was, "in this case." So I guess with this comment of yours, you're doing exactly what I'm doing to him.

As for the SUV example, if I'm going to be honest, I really DO think they are one of the dumbest things ever made - for people that don't know how to use them properly. They are more dangerous, in my opinion, than anything else out on the road. Dangerous for everyone else, but most likely not for the idiot driver(s).

I have no issues with those that know the limitations of SUVs and drive them accordingly, but in my experience, they are the minority. Frankly, I think that in order to purchase one, people need to go through winter driver training.

Notice how I made sure my intent was clear? I very carefully made sure to state that everything was "my opinion", or "in my experience".

That's a HUGE difference from just saying, "SUVs are the dumbest invention ever made, and dat's da fact, Jack!"

cthia wrote:

MaxxQ wrote:and context means squat.

Patience brings the truth to light. If context does not matter, then reading is meaningless.

MaxxQ wrote:I see you managed to trip my booby trap. The IMPLIED qualifier I left out was, "in this case." So I guess with this comment of yours, you're doing exactly what I'm doing to him.

As for the SUV example, if I'm going to be honest, I really DO think they are one of the dumbest things ever made - for people that don't know how to use them properly. They are more dangerous, in my opinion, than anything else out on the road. Dangerous for everyone else, but most likely not for the idiot driver(s).

I have no issues with those that know the limitations of SUVs and drive them accordingly, but in my experience, they are the minority. Frankly, I think that in order to purchase one, people need to go through winter driver training.

Notice how I made sure my intent was clear? I very carefully made sure to state that everything was "my opinion", or "in my experience".

That's a HUGE difference from just saying, "SUVs are the dumbest invention ever made, and dat's da fact, Jack!"

Not quite. Mine was to protect the honor of a poster.

cthia wrote:Not quite. Mine was to protect the honor of a poster.

White knighting? Waste of time in general, IMO. Most don't appreciate it the way it should be.

All I was trying to do is point out that his post wasn't clear, and didn't say what he intended to say. Also, that opinion does not equal fact, no matter how many people say it does, or agree with the opinion.

cthia wrote:You were doing almost fine until you attached that conditional to it. That is where it is flawed and begins to unravel. "Absolute truth" is valid regardless of anyone's opinion, acceptance or knowledge thereof. And there can only be one absolute truth.

And absolute truth in this case is that the earlier poster claimed something as a fact despite the fact that it was purely an opinion. Had he stated that it is a fact that HE thinks what he wrote, then that would be a fact. Stating that EVERYONE thinks that, then it´s not unless he actually know it to be true for all.

Had he just written it, then fine, but adding that it IS A FACT changes the statement from any kind of limited or personal opinion to an all inclusive.

cthia wrote:I hope you don't blame me at this point for not assuming that you know what you are holding in your hand at that point. I'll give you a three-letter clue to help you figure it out. G O D. (IF THERE IS A GOD) Or at least the "god process of existence" (even if one does not believe in and even if there is not a God), or whatever your fancy chooses to label it.

And that is assuming, that you are already aware of the implications of a Theory of Everything if there exists a Theory of Everything.

*shrugs*

In light of that, we cannot ignore the truths on a micro scale, local only to the "function at hand."

That red herring combined with non sequiteur and strawman does not even make sense.
Nice try to stack as many logical fallacies on each other as possible, but completely worthless as an argument.

cthia wrote:And the function at hand if incorporated into a subroutine in a computer program would read something like...

10 If b4ndit did not enjoy SOV then Print "Hoorah!" Else Print "False"

The function would print Hoorah every time because local to that function only, it is true that b4ndit did not enjoy SOV.

And if he had actually written that it was a fact that HE didn´t like it, then you would probably have a valid point.

Currently however, you´re mostly just digging yourself deeper into a quagmire of flawed or ridiculous arguments.

cthia wrote:Or we would sit stagnant as a pond of frogs on lily pads. It is the same truth that allows quantum mechanics and quantum realities to function. It is simply the yin and yang.

*ugh*

Fine, don´t ever try arguing high end physics.
The universe would probably spontaneously implode out of embarassment or something.

cthia wrote:He is not stating an absolute.

Yes he did.

If i say that you have a big nose, then that is stating my opinion.
If instead i state that it is a fact that you have a big nose, then it becomes a blanket statement, a statement that such IS true, regardless of my opinion or ANYONEs opinion, in this case including yours.

Unless by coincedence it happened to actually be true, stating it as a fact is clearly and blatantly wrong, as it is NOT a fact but an opinion.

cthia wrote:The problem was that Maxx read too much into the guys post and was nitpicking. I chose to nitpick Maxx, because Maxx should have known better. That the guy was only speaking from his own world.

If you state something as a blanket fact, without limitations or conditions, then no you are NOT "speaking only from your own world", ie opinion.

The moment you state something as a FACT, then it either needs to be something that is reasonably established to BE a fact, or you need to have the evidence to back it up.

MaxxQ was not in the wrong, the one who should have known better was you, who started nitpicking at something that was correct.

zyffyr wrote:

B4ndit wrote:I will allow to quote myself.

B4ndit>> "So it's a fact, that Shadow of Victory is not enjoyable for vast majority of the readers."

With which you can not argue, because those reviews proves that this is a fact.

In previous post I have used term

Actually, what it proves is that the majority of those who bothered to write reviews were not particularly happy. It implies, but does not prove, that the feeling is widespread among readers. Not quite the same thing.

I seem to recall claims that unhappy consumers were something like ten times more likely to leave a review than satisfied customers.

So having, say, 60% of purchaser reviews be negative probably doesn't mean than 60% of readers disliked it. But it is, as you said, indicative that this book isn't as widely enjoyed as books with a higher percentage of favorable reviews.

MaxxQ wrote:

cthia wrote:Not quite. Mine was to protect the honor of a poster.

White knighting? Waste of time in general, IMO. Most don't appreciate it the way it should be.

All I was trying to do is point out that his post wasn't clear, and didn't say what he intended to say. Also, that opinion does not equal fact, no matter how many people say it does, or agree with the opinion.

If you truly believe that then I really am wasting my time and we are from two very incompatible backgrounds.

I am who my parents raised me to be. And I will continue to fight for the weak. To open doors for women -- and many men too if the situation warrants it. I will continue to walk an old lady across the street, or to her car and carry her groceries. I will share an umbrella with a woman in the rain. I will donate to the homeless. I will recycle my recyclables. I will rescue an animal in distress. I will report a baby left in a hot car -- break the window if I have to. And if I see a poster needlessly disrespected or harassed, I will speak out. I will continue to do these things. And if, by God, I am wasting my time then I will continue to waste my time but I will no longer waste yours on this matter on this issue.

I always thought that you were amongst the decent posters on this forum and still do and that this incident was perhaps just symptomatic of a lack of coffee. If I am wrong, I hope it isn't the coffee.

Tenshinai wrote:If you state something as a blanket fact, without limitations or conditions, then no you are NOT "speaking only from your own world", ie opinion.

Yeah. I think it was throwing the word "fact" in there that made it seem an over-broad claim, though the present tense doesn't help.

"Whatever were the reasons, it doesn't change the fact, that Shadow of Victory is not very enjoyable to read." Sounds pretty absolute and global.. Even casting it into the past tense would have made it sound more like his experience, but casting it in the present tense makes it sound like anybody reading it now would also find it unenjoyable.

If instead B4ndit had said "Whatever were the reasons, it doesn't change that Shadow of Victory wasn't very enjoyable to read." then I don't think we'd have gone off on this tangent. This phrasing seems (to me) to much more clearly connotate that it is just one reader's opinion (though possibly a somewhat widely shared one) despite not explicitly stating that.

B4ndit wrote:
Hmm, it's a little bit too long to listen for me Whatever were the reasons, it doesn't change the fact, that Shadow of Victory is not very enjoyable to read. And we are not alone with such impression. According to goodreads, this book is in the bottom 5 from all David Weber's books?

Frankly, I usually just lurk around the fringe these days, but this is ridiculous enough that I will come out of my comfortable shadow and comment.

Point 1: By declaring this a fact, you have just stated that "Shadow of Victory is not very enjoyable to read" is indisputably the case and is provable.

Point 2: By declaring that "Shadow of Victory is not very enjoyable to read" is a fact, you are claiming to know the experiences of all the readers of this book.

Point 3: My experience does not match your proposed "fact."

Point 4: I do not appreciate your claim, since you are rewriting my experience to match your world view.

It is not necessary for everyone to like - or dislike - the same things. It is this variation that gives people interesting things to discuss at the dinner table. But don't try to make yourself more correct by claiming to know what everone else's experiences have been. This is faulty logic, at best.

Simply accept that your opinion, written honestly, is enough to gain you a place at the table and a part of the conversation.

And remember my rules, everyone.

PLAY NICE.

Gena

I think this discussion has reached the point of senselessness (is this an englich word? ).
Basically different reader have different opinions, which is normal.

To quote Tolkien (Foreword LotR 2nd Ed.):
"Some who have read the book, or at any rate have reviewed it, have found it boring, absurd or comtemptible; and I have no cause to complain, since I have similar opinions of their works, or the kind of writing that they evidently prefer."

I find the book enjoyable, although it is not what I expected. I wonder how DW will wind up the storylines in the last book (4000 Pages??).