************* The following message is relayed to you by [email protected] ************
Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: > From: Pete McLaughlin <[email protected]> > Date: February 23, 2012 11:51:53 AM PST > To: Ant Phillips <[email protected]> > Cc: "[email protected]" > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [IVy-subs-1] Games > > ** ivy-subscribers-1 > Started January 1997 > Relaying positive communication to participants. > ** > Hi Ant > I agree that there are a profusion of mutually exclusive definitions of > "Game" in common use which would keep people confused on the subject. > My email "All Games are Abberative" was based on, included and required the > Scientology Technical Dictionary definitions of the word "Game" to make sense. > > Sincerely > Pete > > Sent from my iPad > > On Feb 23, 2012, at 10:30 AM, Ant Phillips <[email protected]> wrote: > >> ** ivy-subscribers-1 >> Started January 1997 >> Relaying positive communication to participants. >> ** >> Dear ivy-subscribers, >> >> On two of the three list I am on there has been a lot of talk recently about >> games. I have found it confusing, and it seemed to me that different people >> were using different definitions for the word "game" >> for example, I came across one sentence : >> "Since games are activities with terminals in opposition; there must be a >> term for activities with terminals in agreement." >> >> I can also remember (outside of Scn) phrases in the direction of "he seems >> to be playing a game with me". That was a special use of the word game >> (implying hidden intentions, pervasions, and trouble :-)). The World Book >> Dictionary defines play games as "to avoid facing up to a task in earnest; >> act evasively" >> >> Indeed the World Book Dictionary has 14 different meaning for the word game, >> and eight definitions of the word game in combination with another word or >> words. Interesting. Having seen that I feel I have a bit of an explanation >> as to why I have felt a bit confused with the quantity of words about games, >> non of them including a definition. >> >> For me a game does not have to have a second terminal, certainly not one in >> opposition.. There is a card game some play by them self (I've forgotten >> the name), where some times the player wins (it "goes up") and sometime s/he >> does not. And there seem to be loads of computer games, a percentage of >> which do not have an opponent. >> >> We have had a number of great projects in Denmark over the past couple of >> decades. Connecting two areas of land with large bridge and tunnel >> connections for road and rail, and building a metro. Those are great games. >> And Kennedy invented a great game of getting a man on the moon. >> >> I'd appreciate it if next time someone on this list talks about games, they >> included the definition they were talking about. >> >> Incidentally not all games are serious. Some are lighthearted, with >> insouciant players. >> >> All best wishes, >> >> Ant >> >> ** >> Originations, comments, to the list, send to >> [email protected] >> Home Page: http://www.ivymag.org with extensive links to FZ! >> ** >> > = > ** > Originations, comments, to the list, send to > [email protected] > Home Page: http://www.ivymag.org with extensive links to FZ! > ** >
_______________________________________________ Trom mailing list [email protected] http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
