|
|
Post by paddy649 on Jul 11, 2019 17:01:54 GMT
Sorry Stevie - I’m mid-rant! Agree with everything you say - so why does PB define OR the other way round for elements. That is just madness!
You can either mix your drinks or (in this case meaning exclusive or) you can’t. It doesn’t matter if you are buying them from the off-license or the pub - you are still mixing your drinks when you pour them down your throat!
No one is asking to buy ⅓ of a keg of beer and ⅔ of a case of wine. But if I can by a pint of beer OR a glass of wine and that means “either, or, or both” then then when I buy a keg of beer OR a case of wine that should also mean “either, or, or both.”
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Jul 11, 2019 19:01:46 GMT
I don’t see any problem here at all. In the text preceding army list descriptions Phil has explicitly stated the meaning of “or” and “/“ with reference to troop types. No madness, perfectly clear. In so far as allies are concerned, the common use of “or” and “and/or” is used. Does this not mean simply, you can pick “one ally or the other” or “one ally and another.” In the former case you get three elements from that army, and the latter you get two from each of the two. The “or” here It’s just like the “or” in the rest of the text, such as in the topography section, “1 BUA or 2 Plough”. Meaning the former or the latter but not both.
What I find “Madness“ is comments by people who denigrate Phil’s effort because they do not understand it.
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jul 11, 2019 20:19:38 GMT
I'm just upset that Paddy won't let me have Beer and Wine.
Though Stevie does show good taste in his preference for a quality cider.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jul 11, 2019 20:34:45 GMT
I think Bob has hit the nail on the head. But if I can buy a pint of beer OR a glass of wine and that means “either, or, or both”... ...and there’s the problem...’or’ does NOT mean ‘both’. It never has, and never will.
‘Or’ means ‘pick-one-your-choice’...it’s ‘and/or’ that means ‘one, the other, even both together’.Mr Barker explains on page 31 that ‘/’ means all elements must be of the same type, with no mixing (segregation!) ‘Or’ means you can pick-and-mix. So “4 x natives (3Ax or Ps)” means ‘pick-one-your-choice’, then do it again, and again, until 4 elements are selected. Likewise, “Allies: II/37 or II/43 or II/50” also means ‘pick-one-your-choice’. In both cases the use of the word ‘or’ is consistent and the same...‘pick-one-your-choice’. ------------------------------ But this not the best example of Barkereese. Apart from extra long sentences (see fanaticus.boards.net/thread/1845/worst-edited-rulebook?page=3 ), I draw people’s attention to the potential minefield of “Moving Into Contact With The Enemy” on page 9. “At the end of the movement phase, the contacting (i.e. moving) element or group must be lined-up...” (Fair enough...the moving troops do the lining-up)“Unless turning-to-face a flank or rear contact, contacted (i.e. stationary) elements conform on contact.” (Hang on...this says it’s the stationary troops that have to do the lining-up!)“A single element contacting a single element conforms to it. A single element or group contacting a group conforms to that group. A single element contacted by a group conforms to it (unless itself entirely in bad and/or rough going, then the group conforms).” (Now it’s saying sometimes the moving troops line-up, and sometimes the stationary troops do!)Come on Barker...make up your mind!  Of course the third quote is the one we all follow. Nonetheless, it is an example of the rules saying one thing, but we all know that it means something else. So you can’t follow the rules, word-for-word, as they are written (at least, not all of them). |
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Jul 11, 2019 20:46:26 GMT
I don’t see any problem here at all. In the text preceding army list descriptions Phil has explicitly stated the meaning of “or” and “/“ with reference to troop types. No madness, perfectly clear. In so far as allies are concerned, the common use of “or” and “and/or” is used. Does this not mean simply, you can pick “one ally or the other” or “one ally and another.” In the former case you get three elements from that army, and the latter you get two from each of the two. The “or” here It’s just like the “or” in the rest of the text, such as in the topography section, “1 BUA or 2 Plough”. Meaning the former or the latter but not both. What I find “Madness“ is comments by people who denigrate Phil’s effort because they do not understand it. Bob, to denigrate means to damage someone's reputation. To besmirche the good name of someone. To sully, tarnish, blacken, drag through the mud, stain, taint, smear, befoul, disgrace, dishonour, bring discredit to, injure, damage, debase, spoil, ruin, slander or defame........and you think I’ve done that by saying that it is madness that the word OR has two separate meanings in the Army lists? Really? I mean.......Really??? Anyway sorry if you think that. I respect you opinion. ‘Nuff said. |
|
|
|
Post by Baldie on Jul 11, 2019 20:48:17 GMT
Sound like the lyrics to a Suicidal Tendencies song.
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jul 12, 2019 2:32:19 GMT
Yes...the wording could be better...
That isn't an exactly new observation.
I am thankful we have some guidance for this.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Jul 12, 2019 4:50:09 GMT
What's the rundown offer of mixing Cider with Pernod?
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jul 12, 2019 12:13:45 GMT
The FAQ team may need to address that one!
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Jul 12, 2019 19:57:00 GMT
Calling Phil's writing "madness" to my mind is to denigrate in all the meanings given above. To say that one does not understand it is certainly reasonable. Does he not fully explain the meaning of using "or" for army lists? What part of that explanation is not understood?
|
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Jul 12, 2019 21:58:20 GMT
Calling Phil's writing "madness" to my mind is to denigrate in all the meanings given above. To say that one does not understand it is certainly reasonable. Does he not fully explain the meaning of using "or" for army lists? What part of that explanation is not understood? Yes Bob - but please read my earlier rant where I pointed out that Phil does explain what “or” means and then later down the Army lists uses the same word in a different context. That is the part that, whilst I understand completely, I consider is illogical and inconsistent. Plus I didn’t say that PB’s writing was madness - I said that him taking the trouble to meticulously define a term to mean one thing and then use it in a different way was madness. Anyway just my opinion which I justify and no more than that. If you disagree then fine - you have the right to your own opinions. But holding a different opinion to you and to justify it is not denegrating or slanderous in any way, it is a discussion or debate. Anyway - as I said ‘Nuff said. |
|
|
|
Post by davidjconstable on Jul 14, 2019 10:34:54 GMT
The word "or" is an alternative.
So if we have "A or B or C" then you can have "A or B,"B or C", but you cannot have "A or C" since "B" comes between.
This becomes more complex if you add in "and".
So "A and/or B and/or C", you can have "ABC", "BC", "AB", but you cannot have "AC" since "B" comes between.
A is tied to B, B is tied to C, but A is not tied to C (and that is very important).
Hopes this makes sense.
David Constable
|
|
