Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post - In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.

Threshold · 01-05-2009, 10:50 AM

One more thing Zeno (and by the way, thank for visiting this site, signing up, and posting):

Can you tell me what your take is on the fact that Mendaliv and a few other members of his "crew" either completely ignore or dismissively discard all arguments for the other side?

And every single citation or reference is just too minor in their eyes to be relevant. Isn't there a point where a giant pile of "minor" (in their opinion) references add up to something notable? Isn't there a point where maybe they need to acknowledge that MUDs, and MUD related web sites/sources are not quite as irrelevant as they want to declare them to be?

The mental gynmastics they engage in to dismiss every possible source or reference is amazing. Earlier this morning, Dr. Richard Bartle, the creator of the first MUD, took the time to . With the title, "", he goes on to attest to the notability of the Mud Connector, Threshold, The Mud Journal, and others. Yet these folks have the unmitigated gall to say "Well, his article is really more about Wikipedia than Threshold or TMC, so it simply adds to Wikipedia's notability, not theirs."

Wha.. wha... WHAT?!?!?!?!

At what point do they simply have to admit that a subject matter that generates this much attention, with this many external sources, and verification from the world's most respected opinion on the subject is at a bare minimum notable enough for Wikipedia.

01-05-2009, 10:50 AM	#56
Threshold Legend Join Date: Apr 2002 Home MUD: Threshold RPG Posts: 1,260	Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned. One more thing Zeno (and by the way, thank for visiting this site, signing up, and posting): Can you tell me what your take is on the fact that Mendaliv and a few other members of his "crew" either completely ignore or dismissively discard all arguments for the other side? And every single citation or reference is just too minor in their eyes to be relevant. Isn't there a point where a giant pile of "minor" (in their opinion) references add up to something notable? Isn't there a point where maybe they need to acknowledge that MUDs, and MUD related web sites/sources are not quite as irrelevant as they want to declare them to be? The mental gynmastics they engage in to dismiss every possible source or reference is amazing. Earlier this morning, Dr. Richard Bartle, the creator of the first MUD, took the time to . With the title, "", he goes on to attest to the notability of the Mud Connector, Threshold, The Mud Journal, and others. Yet these folks have the unmitigated gall to say "Well, his article is really more about Wikipedia than Threshold or TMC, so it simply adds to Wikipedia's notability, not theirs." Wha.. wha... WHAT?!?!?!?! At what point do they simply have to admit that a subject matter that generates this much attention, with this many external sources, and verification from the world's most respected opinion on the subject is at a bare minimum notable enough for Wikipedia.