Icycalm 2.0

[Gardenia]

No, please, give my childhood obsession literary vindication so I don't have to write my thesis on something boring.

None of these people possess the minimum required amount of intelligence to grasp the simple fact that some subjects are by definition more interesting than others, and therefore essays dealing with these subjects will also be more interesting. These kids are so dumb that they have yet to figure out that a review of a videogame, the vast majority of which are nothing more than childish pastimes, could not possibly equal in worth the review of a film, the vast majority of which deal in some way with the human condition. A review of a thing cannot rise above the value of that thing, after all, whatever Tim and Eric-Jon might try to tell you -- because if it did it would not be a review of that thing any more.

It is the subject matter that dooms game reviews to intellectual irrelevance, and not the skill of the reviewers. You could get someone like Jean Baudrillard to review the latest BMW for you, but that'd just be wasting the man's brainpower. If he does give you a straight-up car review it'll be a waste, because there's a thousand shmucks who could have done the same job, whereas only Baudrillard can do the job he does. If on the other hand he gives you something like The Consumer Society, then clearly that will not be a review of a BMW, regardless of how many references to BMWs it might contain -- it will be a sociological study mislabeled as a BMW review.

Enough! Whether videogames are really growing deeper, more meaningful and more profound is irrelevant to these people -- they must and will be shown to be doing so in order to assuage the bad conscience of these men-children! These people have at last come to crave some degree of seriousness and profundity in their lives, some depth of feeling, some measure of spirituality; as human beings it is almost a biological necessity for them, and definitely a sociological one (this is the origin of their bad conscience -- the pressure to "grow up"), and since they have not bothered at any point to take an interest in, say, history, literature or philosophy -- fields of human endeavor which would have quenched the thirst for depth and spirituality of even the most spiritually thirsty human being, leaving him now with the opposite need, a need for frivolity, shallowness, playfulness, in short, a need for games -- the only place they can look for spirituality now is in the only place they know. And if they can't find it there, if it turns out that it simply doesn't exist there, that will in no way prevent them from miraculously discovering it -- by inventing it.

Try again.

[Skykid]

I think some IP address checking is required. I'm hearing echoes from a distant past that are all too familiar.

[szycag]

Nah.

[Gardenia]

I think some IP address checking is required. I'm hearing echoes from a distant past that are all too familiar.

As I posted earlier, I knew it was a matter of time before this nonsense was spouted. Check my IP. No problem. Keep in mind also that Alex's last post on insomnia was 2 days ago, that he has not even replied in the thread which linked to this one, and that I imagine he checks his own site before checking shmups. I am not even defending icy himself, I am defending logical argument, good reasoning, and intellectual honesty. If you people are mixing all of that up with what icycalm does, then so be it. Nice compliment for him, really.

Nah.

Hark; the insolent cry of the defeated.

[Elixir]

I still await anyone to come forth with a real critique of icy's writings. A critique, that is, which demonstrates a true understanding of said writings, and analyses them point-by-point to highlight their shortcomings. That is the only sort of post which can possibly hold any weight in this thread. Otherwise you're simply squealing like fucking children.

The problem here is barely anybody wishes to do so. Icycalm is known for taking prehistoric knowledge fresh out of wikipedia and mixing it into his arguments to create an elaborate and overly bloated explanation for whatever he's talking about.

He's mocked because he takes everything to heart, and treats everybody as a threat. He can't take constructive criticism and feels like what he writes is flawless and imperishable. When confronted, he clams up and indirectly insults people while discrediting those glorious point-by-point points people try to approach him with.

I haven't done an in-depth analysis on some guy's shit on the internet, but that Team Fortress 2 riot review made its way over to my corners of the internet. A fair amount of that review spilled out everywhere. The biggest issue with that was that the reviewer in question never actually maintained any credibility to come back and defend himself, he just had icycalm shielding him throughout.

That review in particular was based on the 360 version, where there's no clan scene, and where it's always secondary to PC when it's 1) an FPS and 2) Valve.

Oh, and the whole thing about getting somebody to do an in-depth review about Arcana Heart. That still gets revived from time to time. But when he told icycalm that key gameplay aspects wouldn't be understood by a non-playing audience (which is true), icycalm threw a fit and started getting pushy with him with things like "well you can finish college after--".

This thread needs not hold any weight because icycalm holds all that weight himself (heh). He's the one who makes a spectacle out of himself, no involvement from others is required. You're basically wanting people to raise specific points about his works, then indirectly insult them and claim that their claims have no credibility. Seen that somewhere before, actually.

[Skykid]

I think some IP address checking is required. I'm hearing echoes from a distant past that are all too familiar.

As I posted earlier, I knew it was a matter of time before this nonsense was spouted. Check my IP. No problem. Keep in mind also that Alex's last post on insomnia was 2 days ago, that he has not even replied in thread which linked to this one, and that I imagine he checks his own site before checking shmups. I am not even defending icy himself, I am defending logical argument, good reasoning, and intellectual honesty. If you people are mixing that up with what icycalm does, then so be it. Nice compliment, really.

Fair enough, but the point of your being here is lost on me. You've signed up an account to defend the writings of an invisible amateur internet journalist against a forum that considers him crass and egotistical. Any debate or discussion on videogaming, however philosophical and vague, is fine - but it doesn't mean everyone has to agree with it.

It's less his faux intellectual topics that are the issue anyway. Regardless of their merit/ignorance, it's Icy's flagrant discourtesy toward other people's opinions that has made him an deserved outcast.

We banned him with good cause, and that gives us the right to rag on him - at least until he changes his attitude.

[Gardenia]

I cut out all of the irrelevant nonsense in your post since you had already encapsulated it in your first sentence. Aphoristic writing is good -- learn to stick with it.

The problem here is barely anybody wishes to do so.

Until you show me otherwise, I will continue to state that the "problem" here is barely anybody can. I'm not being unreasonable. The moment you prove this wrong, I'll change my stance.

I'm not holding my breath.

It's less his faux intellectual topics that are the issue anyway. Regardless of their merit/ignorance, it's Icy's flagrant discourtesy toward other people's opinions that has made him an deserved outcast.

If you must judge a man, judge him on his thought. The style with which he applies his thought to paper (or, indeed, to the internet) is of no importance, or at least not as important (nowhere near) as the content itself. Icy himself makes this point when he says that in a game review the writing itself is of no importance -- all that matters is the expertise and the thought of the writer. Similarly, Icy's hostile tone is not important if you're attacking his articles. You should be attacking the thought behind them, not the way that thought is presented. You're attacking something that doesn't matter. Maybe I'm just too used to being interested in things that do matter to really understand why you're so concerned with this aspect (his confrontational manner) alone. If what you're doing now is admitting that in this thread you're simply talking about the man behind his back for no other reason than his attitude towards you and other people (aww, dwid the nwasty man call you nwames?), rather than because of any intellectual or failings on the part of his writing - which is all that matters in the end - then let me know and I'll disappear. I have no time for that sort of bullshit.

[Ex-Cyber]

I think some IP address checking is required. I'm hearing echoes from a distant past that are all too familiar.

As I posted earlier, I knew it was a matter of time before this nonsense was spouted.

Give me a break. That was just your way of saying "my posts look like blatant sockpuppetry, but you're not allowed to make a big deal out of that because if you do i win nanananananana".

[system11]

"Well, physics is a branch of philosophy."

On the face of it, this is correct. It matches the definition of physics in the dictionary.

Philosophy in the general sense though, is so far from scientific that comparing one to the other is only something a philosopher might think was reasonable.

Or an idiot with a really huge ego, who fell off the rails about 2 years ago and spiralled off into another tangent of reality, inhabited only by internet crazies.

Also noticed someone mention Rev Stu - I would pay hard cash to see those two fighting in a thread.

[Gardenia]

I think some IP address checking is required. I'm hearing echoes from a distant past that are all too familiar.

As I posted earlier, I knew it was a matter of time before this nonsense was spouted.

Give me a break. That was just your way of saying "my posts look like blatant sockpuppetry, but you're not allowed to make a big deal out of that because if you do i win nanananananana".

To repeat, do any checks required. Prove yourself wrong all you like; it'll do little but make me laugh even more at this mountain of retardation masquerading as discussion.

Also noticed someone mention Rev Stu - I would pay hard cash to see those two fighting in a thread.

Like watching a mouse fight a wolf.

It matches the definition of physics in the dictionary.

...but let's just ignore that! Fuck the dictionaries, with their rules and their definitions! Down with the man!

Philosophy in the general sense though, is so far from scientific that comparing one to the other is only something a philosopher might think was reasonable.

Insomnia has never dealt with philosophy "in the general sense".

[system11]

Insomnia has never dealt with philosophy "in the general sense".

Insomnia used to be a pretty good site about games and gaming related things, and I used to check it fairly religiously for updates, because the writing was very good and the articles were interesting.

Now it's an asylum for a fascist lunatic and his followers.

No amount of quality writing can cover up the fact that the site is now hopelessly lost inside the writers rectum.

The 'stealing' of other peoples work was a fairly low point too. Of course the retaliatory DMCA douchebaggery isn't much better, but still.

[Elixir]

you had already encapsulated it in your first sentence.

But I didn't. I explained why people don't want to deal with it (nobody cares what he has to say any more) and why people don't want to deal with icycalm (he's a sociopath who can't take no for an answer). Part of that explained how he discredits people's comments--sort of like what you just did--and only replies to what he sees is worth attacking. This isn't how it works.

Gardenia, this thread and this forum owes you nothing. No elaborate point-by-point bullshit, nothing. You're a new member and you've started by asking people to prove themselves (sounds like how I started out here; it didn't end well). How about you prove yourself first? I know you won't, because you're only here to pull the wool over everyone else's eyes with "haha, you're not willing to dig through essays of shit to find counter-arguments from a banned member! Silly you!".

Real mature.

[Ex-Cyber]

To repeat, do any checks required.

I don't care whether you're a sockpuppet, meatpuppet, or just a wayward contrarian. The point of my post is that you claim to be for reasoned debate, yet you gleefully utilize sophomoric bullshit tactics that have nothing to do with actually advancing the debate.

[Gardenia]

How about you prove yourself first?

In what way? I'm fairly sure (see: certain) this is not out of my reach, but you've given no criteria on which to prove myself, making your remark absurd.

I used to check it fairly religiously for updates, because the writing was very good and the articles were interesting.

I'm aware -- I enjoyed your Imperishable Night review when it was first posted and still do now whenever I inadvertently come across it. I refute you with a sense of slight despair to think that you were once on the right side of this debate.

To repeat, do any checks required.

I don't care whether you're a sockpuppet, meatpuppet, or just a wayward contrarian. The point of my post is that you claim to be for reasoned debate, yet you gleefully utilize sophomoric bullshit tactics that have nothing to do with actually advancing the debate.

This guy, on the other hand, is a lost cause. lol

[jpj]

If you must judge a man, judge him on his thought. The style with which he applies his thought to paper (or, indeed, to the internet) is of no importance, or at least not as important (nowhere near) as the content itself. Icy himself makes this point when he says that in a game review the writing itself is of no importance -- all that matters is the expertise and the thought of the writer.

If you so much as miss a comma or an apostrophe YOU WILL BE BANNED. If you post "fps" YOU WILL BE BANNED. If you post "2d" YOU WILL BE BANNED.

this is why we laugh at him if you think ayone here cares what he *thinks* and is interested in wasting their time with some anonymous troll to dissect some 1000-2000 word verbal wankery, then you've got your head firmly up your ass.

the way you're replying to each and every post also makes me laugh. as did the screen-capping

[Taylor]

When icycalm finally reads this thread, I wonder if he is going to be pleased or annoyed to see you rushing to his protection. You never can be sure.

[Ed Oscuro]

It's pretty hilarious how most of you, especially Ed Oscuro, are coming off just as insane as you're saying Icycalm is. I guess he really does rile people up that much.

That's not a reasoned argument against mine. You just failed your own test.

It's as seemingly pretentious and self-righteous as that. None of you have really attacked any points made in his articles.

So do you imagine the bullshit quoted in the OP simply doesn't exist? I see that there are parts of Icydom that are off-limits to his boosters. If the kid had ever admitted taking the piss with some of his comments and demands then we wouldn't treat it as an accurate judge of his character. But he plays everything straight, and so must we.

It matches the definition of physics in the dictionary.

...but let's just ignore that! Fuck the dictionaries, with their rules and their definitions! Down with the man!

I think we all know that dictionaries are more relevant in determining the proper hierarchy of the rational arts than empirical, consistent evidence presented in the years since the middle of the 19th century.

The point that is most galling to me is the "Icy's style doesn't count" argument. This a tacit admission that Icycalm isn't effective, and that he would be more effective in boosting his favorite ideas if he quit the needless rage and wrote in a direct style (aside from when bashing somebody). Style does count. The two primary functions of philosophy are first to determine the proper manner of action (since science just describes how things are), and secondly in popularizing those ideas so they may have effect. Layered absurdities presented with the stipulation that they must somehow all be "understood" when every attempt to get at a philosopher's hidden perception of that truth is a sure sign to many readers that they may better employ their attention elsewhere.

I've always thought that one of the better points of Ayn Rand was that her writings force the reader, even one who believes her favored structure for society is inimical to its proper functioning, to justify their beliefs to themselves in light of her criticisms coming out of having lived in the Soviet Union and seeing more hypocrisy in the society of her adopted land. I can't dismiss Icy's background out of hand for the same reason but he seems to believe that an argument is just as valid if presented in a vacuum, drifting free of any anchors to that nuisance reality. Once a philosopher forgets the muddy roots of humanity they cease to be relevant.

[t0yrobo]

It's been fun reading this Gardenia, thanks for making my day a little brighter. People getting into philosophy and turning into total douches always entertains me because a large amount of the time it shows an inability to step back from what they've learned and truly understand it.

[neist]

I haven't yet read through this entire forum, but those rules are HILARIOUS.

I may go over there for giggles and see how many grammatical mistakes I find in his posts. First post I clicked on had one, actually.

Edit: Oh dear, I think his comma rules aren't exactly correct.

[mr_m0nks]

Internet, serious business.

[antron]

a philosopher or a physicist can change the world, but a physicist can do it instantly.

[Skykid]

Icy himself makes this point when he says that in a game review the writing itself is of no importance -- all that matters is the expertise and the thought of the writer.

Well if Icy himself uttered such a thing then I'm truly disappointed. For a self-appointed voice in the world of internet games journalism, such a statement is absurd.
Our differences of opinion aside Gardenia, I absolutely can't abide a suggestion that the composition of the writing isn't as important as the content. I'd wager both were as important as each other, and perhaps this is why many of his articles fall on deaf ears.
Although his writing is by no means the worst you can find on the net, the number of grammatical errors and overwritten copy put me off digging much deeper the first time I visited Insomnia.

[captpain]

You guys are a bunch of nerds.

[z0rly]

That's not a reasoned argument against mine. You just failed your own test.

It wasn't supposed to be? Your writing does not admit nor deserve any 'reasoned argument' for or against it, lol.

[Udderdude]

haha, I didn't know exactly what would happen when the IDF started going bonkers, but this is about 10 times more hilarious than I expected.

You will never get your point-by-point rebuttal of whatever Icyclam wrote.

Because nobody really gives a shit about him, other than for some cheap laughs at his expense.

hth, hand

And just for the record, I agree with most of what I've heard from him about videogames. But when he goes off onto some misogynist, philosophy worshipping, anti-scientific rant from that, it's all downhill. That, and his ego has swelled to the size of a small planet.

[Limbrooke]

You guys are a bunch of nerds.

Can you guess who? It's a mystery!

[ArrogantBastard]

[Skykid]

Brilliant.

[Gungriffon Geona]

Where all 'dem icycalms dun start comin' from?

I also think part of his criticism of Alexander stems from the cute/sexy persona she attempts to cultivate on her website and that without this feminine aspect no one would give a damn about her piddling writing. I agree with others that this article in particular comes off as especially juvenile and that if he were more level-headed more people would take notice of what he says, but he's given explanations for his stylistic choices on the forums--and this is really an issue of style, not content--so if he enjoys writing in such a style, more power to him. It's not going to help his already warm-and-fuzzy reputation online, but that does not, and should not, matter.

This is the only time I ever remotely agreed with him on something. Bitches don't do shit reviewing games.

[DEL]

Bloodflowers wrote;

Also noticed someone mention Rev Stu - I would pay hard cash to see those two fighting in a thread.

I would also pay that cagefight too. The Good Reverend would of course win with his eloquent savage cussing.
Herr Schatten wrote;

Icyjesus wrote:
incoherent babbling is because of the sexual frustrations of socially-stunted virgin

As for me, I don't think that name dropping obscure theologans into your prose makes you more intelligent than Stephen Hawking. Nor does it make your ramblings relevant to video games.
But Hey, whatever turns you on .