free Nate

[reno expat]

Step 1: Quash dissent.
Step 2: ????????
Step 3: Profit!

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
Step 1: Quash dissent.
Step 2: ????????
Step 3: Profit!

[/ QUOTE ]

Additionally, I agree with MB, tuq and others...

When people get banned for expressing an opinion, something is wrong with the system!

[Greg P]

How can someone that is so successful be so defensive about something that is so glaringly true?

Apparently, the debate in Nate's thread boils down to Mason saying that he cares a lot about the editing and Nate saying that it doesn't show/seem like it. And Nate was civil about it. Is that really worth a ban, temp or otherwise?

I can't see how it should be, especially considering Nate's contribution to the 2p2 community. Just recently, I (a worthless lurker) made a post in B&M about a spread-limit game I am learning. Nate offered, and followed through on said offer, to give me advice on the game, hands, etc.

Had enough? We have enough trolls, lurkers, etc. We don't have enough people like Nate!

[Triumph36]

for anyone who needs a refresher on just how arrogant and unyielding Mason Malmuth can be, check out an old thread in HSNL:

No wonder the games are so good!

To his defense, Mason did admit he was incorrect - after just about every HSNL poster/player disagreed with him.

[kipin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Step 1: Quash dissent.
Step 2: ????????
Step 3: Profit!

[/ QUOTE ]

Additionally, I agree with MB, tuq and others...

When people get banned for expressing an opinion, something is wrong with the system!

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe it was you who banned me when I was complaining about the system.

Cheers!

[Snarf]

[ QUOTE ]
FREE NATE

[/ QUOTE ]

[El Diablo]

UM,

"What would an apology from Nate look like?"

Mason, I apologize for offending you by repeatedly stating that you either don't care about or don't have the ability to edit these books in a more effective writing style that is easier to read and more grammatically sound. My intent was not to grind any ax or offend in any way. But while I enjoy and appreciate 2+2 and the books you produce, good editing and effective writing style are things I am very passionate about. This led to me being very vehement in my points and taking a tone that you obviously did not appreciate. I did not in any way mean to imply that you do not care about producing the highest quality work. I now realize that you are balancing the time it takes to edit works that are often submitted to you in very raw and poorly written form, while still getting your books to market in a reasonable timeframe. I apologize for any implication that you do not care about delivering the highest quality product for your customers. I simply felt that your books, while very good, could be even better and more effective; and I thought that perhaps I and/or other users in the 2+2 community might be able to help you in your goal to deliver the highest quality books possible.

[El Diablo]

Friends of Nate,

I just read through that full thread. Nate should probably read the following info:

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
it's dense with casualisms, solecisms, and shoddy puncutation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess none of us is exactly perfect...

[/ QUOTE ]

By the way, none takes a singular verb.

--Nate

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.bartleby.com/64/C001/039.html
"the citational evidence against restricting none is overwhelming. None has been used as both a singular and plural pronoun since the ninth century."

http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-non2.htm
"It’s uncertain who started the notion that none requires a singular verb, but it’s pervasive, both in the US and Britain, and seems to have been drummed into the heads of generations of schoolchildren. However, all the usage guides — and the usage notes in every dictionary that I can find — are unanimous in saying that it’s wrong.

The argument stems from a misunderstanding of where the word comes from. People assume that none is a condensed form of no one or not one. As both always take a singular verb, the argument goes, so must none. However, the amateur etymologisers have got it slightly but seriously wrong. Our modern form none comes from the Old English nan. Though this is indeed a contraction of ne an, no one, it was inflected in Old English and had different forms in singular and plural, showing that it was commonly used both ways — King Alfred used it in the plural as far back as the year 888.

The big Oxford English Dictionary has a whole section on the plural form of none, pointing out that it is frequently used to mean “no persons” (with writers preferring no one when they mean the singular) and that historical records show that its use in the plural is actually more common than in the singular. There are examples cited in the entry from many of the best English writers (and there’s also an instance in the Authorised Version of the Bible: “None of these things move me”, from Acts, chapter 20). On modern usage, the Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage says, “It appears that writers generally make it singular or plural according to whatever their idea is when they write”.

Such writers, me included, follow the sense — we use the plural or singular form according to whether it’s one or many things that we’re writing about. This grammatical construction, which is based on sense rather than form, has the grand name of notional agreement or notional concord, and is very common (so common that we often don’t notice we’re doing it).

So none of you are right when you accuse me of being ungrammatical."

[tuq]

El D,

Wow, serious stuff. No wonder Mason had had enough.

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Step 1: Quash dissent.
Step 2: ????????
Step 3: Profit!

[/ QUOTE ]

Additionally, I agree with MB, tuq and others...

When people get banned for expressing an opinion, something is wrong with the system!

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe it was you who banned me when I was complaining about the system.

Cheers!

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't remember ever banning you kip (and clearly you are still here)... do remember removing URLs from your location during your anti-Dynasty campaign though...