Matrix Games Forums

Isn't it a grand day?[indent][font=Franklin Gothic Medium]"I can feel my pain, Lord. And I thank you!"[/font]

[/indent]Say, does anyone feel the suction in this room? As if every shred of intelligence were just being vacuumed out of it at an unholy rate?

Chiteng wrote:Minimalism is when know events or combat parameters are ignored, in the pursuit of a statistical model.

pasternakski wrote:Where did this nonsense definition come from? "Minimalist art" is representation of the artist's vision through sparse brush strokes. I know of no other credited use of the term or any similar one. Please explain.

All right, Pasternakski, I will.[indent]Main Entry: 1 min·i·mal·ist [url="http://java%20script:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?minima04.wav=minimalist')"][/url]

Pronunciation: -list
Function: noun
Date: 1907
1 : one who favors restricting the functions and powers of a political organization or the achievement of a set of goals to a minimum
2 a : a minimal artist b : an adherent of minimalism
[/indent]One might also look up the term maximalist for a comparative slant on that, though that's more of an idle suggestion.



If you do so choose to look this kind of stuff up a decent online source may be found here:[indent]http://tinyurl.com/63z

[/indent]You might well employ this source to better catch my typos for me, Pasternakski, a service for which I'm always grateful. And while you're not busy at that giddy pursuit, and as incredible as it seems, you could possibly learn something new to squeeze into that tiny head of yours, and should you learn enough they might even appoint you jack-in-the-pulpit around here. One never knows.



But now let's get on to other and happier subjects.



I get a kick out of running down thoughts presented online, and while a ton's been written on Douglas MacArthur this item strikes me as a fairly good synopsis or abridgment if you will, or at least it is a fairly good blurb of the man the mass media came to portray, and should it come across as somewhat cliche this far down the road maybe that's understandable after all and perhaps even something warmly sought after in our day's vanilla age of comfortable truth and easy fiction.[indent]http://tinyurl.com/s26g


[/indent]As long as Morison has been brought up lately, one perspective of this author which I've never quite gotten or have been able to warm up to is his apparent admiration for MacArthur. At one juncture Morison goes so far as to declare that no officer who ever served under MacArthur had anything to say of the man which not was not highly complimentary of his organizational skills, his grasp on firm leadership and seeming ease of ability in all phases of supreme command, or words to that effect.

That is not my impression of MacArthur, but then again I never got to rub elbows with the man, was instead bombarded by the storm of media circus around him and only after the fact at that. Something Mogami wrote drove my attention back to MacArthur, who was to my generation broadly presented as a regular American icon, a man to be revered above the normal respect one usually accords our country's highest-ranking military men who have distinguished themselves in service. And yet as time wore on, as I grew bolder intellectually, as my interest in military matters led me to closer study of this figure of history my opinion of him and his work swung completely round to where now when I conjure MacArthur's image I see instead of America's hero of the 1950's more the darker and vaguely threatening profile of a bombastic and opportunistic individual, with maybe some of the buffoon thrown in.

Well, my thoughts and impressions of MacArthur must remain where and what they are for the time being. There is small chance to alter one's lifetime of thinking patterns, a lifetime of having been actually thought for by others to some extent in a moment passing. Nevertheless I do wonder what my opinion of this magnetic personality might be today had I been born a generation before my allotted time and actually walked side by side with MacArthur in danger and with our fear along the northern shore of New Guinea.

Uncited 1907 sources don't impress me. Definition number one is merely a popular, inartful use of a specific term from another field of endeavor.

Alright kids....listen up....I'm only going to say this once.

Almost everyone here knows the forum policy here at Matrix. Here's a quick reminder for those who do not what I am talking about:

"The forum policies apply to ALL of the Matrix forums and all forum users. There is to be no spamming, trolling, personal insults, vulgarity, bigotry, profanity or porn. Inappropriate language or conduct can lead to a short vacation or outright dismissal from Matrix. All topics and behavior that is deemed unsuitable or improper will be locked with an explanation given as to why."

Personal insults and trolls, such as in this thread and a few others around here, will not be tolerated. This is a heads up to any and all....not just Tristanjohn in this thread. In short, take it to IM, PM, email or whatever. If you can't follow the aforementioned rules......I will put violaters on vacation.

pasternakski wrote:Uncited 1907 sources don't impress me. Definition number one is merely a popular, inartful use of a specific term from another field of endeavor.

I have Webster's Third, both on my shelf and on my HD. The same basic definition for "minimalsim" is given there. If one reaches back inside older dictionaries then a more "conventional" definition will be found; and so we find in Webster's New World Dictionary (The World Publishing Company, Cleveland and New York, 1953) for Minimalist "1. a member of the right wing of the (former) Russian Social Revolutionaries. 2. a Menshevik (sense 1). Opposed to Maximalist.

But that's a somewhat truncated and dated usage for our purpose. Languages either grow and develop or they die. Our language, the English language, lives and prospers accordingly. For all I know even newer usages of these terms are being employed somewhere as I write this piece, and as dictionaries can only serve us as history books we might not discover these new uses for a number of years to come; yet if and when these uses gain common acceptance in speech and writing then they, too, in the fullness of time will find themselves formally incorporated into that greater lexicon and toolbox of thought expression known the world over as English.

And that's just the way it is, Pasternakski.

Languages do not grow by grafting inartful definitions onto words that are used clearly in the contexts in which they developed. This is known as "decadence."

No true student of language would resort to a dictionary as authority for word use in any event. A dictionary merely reflects socially accepted currency. It underpins nothing. In any event, the use you and Chiteng put "minimalist" (pretty much a bullsh1t word, anyway) to finds no support in social currency or traditional accepted usage.

The point stands. Move on with your constant insults and ridiculous arguments.

"Minimalist Music Period: 1960 - present


The Minimalist school of music is based on the attempt to create the greatest acoustic effect by using the slightest means. It can be seen as a backlash against the heavy orchestration and melodic lines of the Romantic movement and, later, the formless soundscapes of the Aleatory school and the complicated patterns of the Serialists. Minimalist composers seek to strip the ornamentation and augmentation from a musical theme, forcing listeners to focus on the bare essentials. While the music can be deceptively simple, the Minimalist system requires a great deal of planning and procedure on the part of the composer, as well as versatility within the specific framework of the piece. It is a difficult task to glean the maximum effect using only minimal means; the challenge is deciding which means are necessary.
The roots of Minimalism can be found in the early ideas of John Cage, as well as in the music of India, Africa, and other Eastern countries. However, it is a musical style all its own, which breaks musical precedents by redefining the acceptable scale of time as well as the acceptable amount of repetition. Composers of this school strive to draw listeners’ attention to a few very important details, or to repeat a pattern until it hypnotizes the listener. They bring the beauty of simplicity back to art music.

Noted Minimalist composer Philip Glass has his own ensemble of keyboard players, wind instruments, and a variety of electronic devices. His compositions, which utilize the standard Minimalist techniques of repetition and tremendous length, range from solo performances to large ensemble pieces. Individual songs can last up to 15-20 minutes, focusing on the same melodic phrase and repeating it over and over with varying dynamics and superficial melodic activity.

John Adams, an enormously popular Minimalist composer, is perhaps the polar opposite of the Aleatory composer. While Aleatory and other modern composers deny the importance of arousing listeners’ emotions, Adams is known for his deeply stirring compositions, which feature sound patterns that repeat and ripple on top of each other in an achingly perfect sequence.

Another well-known Minimalist composer, Steve Reich, is known for composing works that move so slowly as to be compared to the minute hand of a clock. His compositions change and evolve almost imperceptibly. Reich’s objective is to force listeners to appreciate the process of change rather than the actuality of it.

Minimalist music embraces and rejects aspects in nearly every musical system or genre, from the highly ornamental and rigidly tonal style of the Baroque period to the hypnotic and repetitive sounds of contemporary Techno. It also draws from cultures around the world, refusing to be limited by Western culture."


Hi, Both Philp Glass and Steve Reich drive me crazy. I can't stand the repetition of Glass and listening to Reich is like watching paint dry. I've never heard of John Adams and do not intend on running out to find any. I prefer my Brahms.
Prof. Peter Schickele does a hilarious impersonation of Glass on one of his P. D. Q. Bach recordings. (I actually like it much better then the real thing)(The instrument is a garden hose with a trombone mouthpiece and slide)(He did another, a piano playing the same 5 notes in the same order for 6 minutes. It sounds like it could have actually been composed by Glass)

It's the sort of stuff you have to be in the right mood for. Sometimes Enya sounds good to me. Most of the time... :sleep:

This thread has "minimalist" point, and is "maximalist" silly and boring.

Did I get the usage right?

You missed it by a minimalist amount.

Making it very clear that I address NO ONE in any specific way.

'Minimalists' as I defined them are simply people/players/whoever
who wish to see specific 'acceptable results' when a situation is modeled.
In a Wargame, such as we are discussing here, that is the combat engine.
We as players, do not have access to that engine. We therefore can only speculate.

Any designer or Player who ignores historical reality, because of a perception
'BY HIM/HER' that is doesnt suit the simulated model, has 'MINIMIZED' the reality
of the historical event.

Ask ANY modern day fighter pilot: "does flight experience matter during combat"
What answer will you get? Do we need to debate this yet again?

However it is NOT easily quantified and modeled. That 'grey' area is the source of all this debate. Obviously 'I' feel pilot experience matters a very great deal.
Other people do NOT. I demand NO ONE accept my opinion. But I certainly WONT
abandon it because someone simply doesnt 'like' subjectivity.
People who wish to see the impact of pilot experience, 'MINIMIZED',
are what I am calling 'minimalists'

A detailed analysis of all Surface battles in WW2 is presented, with
a statistical analysis. Except of course that analysis ignores two of the
most significant battles. Why? Apparently the persentation feels that
those two battles are statistical artifacts, and thus, excluded.

Those are someone ELSES criteria for valididty. They are NOT mine.
The battles happened, men died, deal with it.

Experience matters, deal with it.

I am far more concerned with a game that AT A MINIMUM can replicate
historical events.

Defining words for your own use is quite common btw =)

The foregoing advertisment brought to you by the school of minimalist thought.

Part of the humor here is that there were a large number of "stupid" things done by "both" sides during the war.

Trying to model this "stupid" factor causes player frustration as they don't want it. They want their soldiers to be good little boys and march off and do exactly what they are told to do producing "proper" results.

You really can't have it both ways. Either accept the fact that you are going to have the "stupid" factor ruin 20% of your games or move into simulations where you control everything down to the last detail so you are the sole "stupid" factor affecting the results.

Logistics in UV/WitP amounts to ensuring that 20% extra anti-"stupid" factor is available at all times in all operations to not fall victim to it. This of course presumes that you are not adding your own "stupid" factor to the mix

We have "Luck" and "Stupidity" then we have "Skill" and "Equipment", makes for some pretty wild results on a good role, makes for a nightmare on a bad roll.

(not aimed at anyone, just pointing out the realities of war, the only truth to war is people die)

mdiehl wrote:You missed it by a minimalist amount.

I thought he maxed it out. But tell me: is a minimal anything like an animal, only smaller? I always thought a minimal was a place where you bought stuff, like booze and fast food.

[Best "Curly" voice-over/impersonation]

Oh! Like a speakeasy? Show me the way!

Which one of you guys bought your pet monkey a computer? Who gave him an email address, registered him on Matrixgames forum ,called him TJ and taught him how to type? That can be the only possible explanation for a thread like this. I'll bet he's a cute little tyke, when he's not snarling at the keyboard.

Typical, you spend a couple of days resolutely not reading TJ threads, and someone changes the rules on you! Who has been arguing about Savo and Tass? And did I miss the whole naval model thread, or have we started spreading our discussions of the inadequacy of the air to air model to cover the poor modelling of surface vessel night actions?

And wtf is the minimalist debate about? (No - seriously!)

1. It's about egos. Seriously.

"I reserve the right to intend wtf I mean to intend regardless of whether or not the way I write conforms to recognizable usage." "No you don't." "Yes I do."

2. It's about mocking the conversation, with humour.

"I would now like to discuss multiple personality disorder. No I wouldn't! Yes I would! Shut up and let me talk!"

It's a good thing there are people out here who actually have a sense of humor to counter the wicked stepsisters' mean spirited, absolutely witless crapola, otherwise, those of us who mean well and try to have fun making sense out of nonsense would have to go elsewhere. MemoryLeak, you are a CARD.

"It's a good thing there are people out here who actually have a sense of humor to counter the wicked stepsisters' mean spirited, absolutely witless crapola, otherwise, those of us who mean well and try to have fun making sense out of nonsense would have to go elsewhere. MemoryLeak, you are a CARD."

You are too kind sir. Thank you. I have read every post on this site and the majority of the ones on UV(they are getting extremely repetitive now so I skip around). It seems to me that a lot of them are very unjust and blatantly inflamatory. When the poster is confronted with direct rebuttal, he dodges the issues, blows a lot of smoke and contiunes in a different direction, rarely directly confronting the rebuttal. The remarks are thinly veiled attempts to hide arrogance and egos behind the camoflage of "just wanting to improve the game". I am happy that we have such a great game for them to criticize. I enjoy playing UV and appreciate just how difficult it is to develope a game like that. I know there are flaws but, in my opinion, it is the best thing produced so far. And it's fun to play.

MemoryLeak wrote:"It's a good thing there are people out here who actually have a sense of humor to counter the wicked stepsisters' mean spirited, absolutely witless crapola, otherwise, those of us who mean well and try to have fun making sense out of nonsense would have to go elsewhere. MemoryLeak, you are a CARD."

You are too kind sir. Thank you. I have read every post on this site and the majority of the ones on UV(they are getting extremely repetitive now so I skip around). It seems to me that a lot of them are very unjust and blatantly inflamatory. When the poster is confronted with direct rebuttal, he dodges the issues, blows a lot of smoke and contiunes in a different direction, rarely directly confronting the rebuttal. The remarks are thinly veiled attempts to hide arrogance and egos behind the camoflage of "just wanting to improve the game". I am happy that we have such a great game for them to criticize. I enjoy playing UV and appreciate just how difficult it is to develope a game like that. I know there are flaws but, in my opinion, it is the best thing produced so far. And it's fun to play.

You 'ask' for refutation. Demanding something simply annoys.
That is the mistake that the pseudo-debaters here make.
If you want 'serious' discussion, you in turn must be serious.
That doesnt happenon this board.

In a true debate, there are rules. There is decorum, and you lose the debate
instantly if you violate the rules.

One of the rules is that you NEVER attack the character of the person doing the
presentation. You confine yourself to rebutting the argument he makes.

This specific feature, of TRUE debate decorum, is notably absent on this forum.

Mogami and one other, are the only people that consistantly refrain from personal attacks. Sometimes Mogami is actually wrong, and eventually will admit it.

However, some random nay-sayer simply yelling 'I dont like you, so your argument is invalid' That doesnt work.

What you see here is NOT debate, it is not discussion, it is simple name calling,
in an endless attempt to gain kudos.

If you want something more than that, then you must yourself DO more than that.

Demanding something, in a hostile manner, is simple emotional manipulation,
recognized as such by all, and simply resented. That isnt debate.
Assuming that you can define what constitutes 'acceptable evidence'
is yet another arrogance. No you do NOT get to do that. To try and do
that simply annoys people who know better.

This isnt academia, and we are not getting graded. Try again.