From: oliver@cs.unc.edu (Bill Oliver)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Dumb Moves By Game Companies --  Oops!! Some Facts.
Date: 4 Jan 1993 16:33:11 -0500
Organization: The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
NNTP-Posting-Host: bodie.cs.unc.edu

In article <1993Jan4.063427.8487@samba.oit.unc.edu> Ricardo.Sedan@launchpad.unc.edu (Ricardo Sedan) writes:
>
>aaahh... the discreet charm of the bourgeoisie!
>
>elitist?
>look it up; i think you'll find (unless the meaning of the word has
>changed drastically) there is little reason to interpret my humble
>ramblings thus.

You want to play dictionary games (yet another sophomoric argument
device).  OK.  Even though practically every person on the net 
knows *exactly* what I mean, I will quote my dictionary for you.

Elitism: 2. consciousness of being or belonging to an elite.

I take it then, when you were so busily denigrating the "unsophisticated 
mind of the average american," you count yourself among this group?

When you refer to the "the discreet charm of the bourgeoisie," when
referring to my posting are you simply simpering or do count yourself
superior in some way to the middle class? 

Replying to a charge of elitism by being condescending and disingenuous
does your defense little good.  "Humble ramblings," indeed.  Nor, by
the way, do your affectations wrt puctuation and capitalization. 

>sophomoric?
>give me a break!


Sophomoric: conceited and overconfident of knowledge but
poorly informed and immature.

In your quick jump to ascribe changes in buying habits to a lack
of sophistication and the mental laxity of the American mind, 
did you bother to do any real research?  Or did you just assume
your elitist predjudices were somehow "fact?"  

I suggest the latter.  If you had bothered to do a minimal amount
fact checking you would have found, as I did, that the overall sales of
"non-social" games did not really fall significantly during the 80s.
Instead, the sales of social games increased.  According to the sources
I called, including Hasbro, MB, Toys R US, and NPD (an industry marketing
research firm), the increase was not due to a switching of people from
playing nonsocial games to social games, but to a new audience which
was switching from other activities to social gameplaying.

Why such as switch?  Because, as you state as "fact", that these
"unsophisticated" minds are "entertained best on the likes of
home alone 2 [sic]?"  Of course not.  Instead, according to the
market researchers, there were two forces coming into play.  The
first was a recession that kept people at home and away from more
expensive amusements, and second, because there was an increase 
and focus of interest in group family activities.  The combination of 
these two lead to the market for relatively cheap amusements 
which could involve the entire family.  People were not becoming
dumber in the 1980s; they were becoming poorer and more interested
in their families. 

Sophomoric?  Exactly.  Your predujuces are not fact just because you
find them comforting.  

>crap?
>i can't argue with such eloquence; you are entitled to your opinion, 
>and i can't defend against this one.
>

No, you cannot.  Because it it true.  You claim that my reply is
"arrogant," "pompous," and "patronizing."  Sorry.  It is arrogant
only in the sense that I don't know my place -- I am guilty of
daring to disagree with the general disparagement of the "unsophisticated
mind of the average american [sic]."   I am guilty of calling an
untruth to its face and calling an elistist predjudice exactly what it
is.  I am guilty of lese majeste, not arrogance.



Bill Oliver
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc