|
|
Post by El Borak on Mar 2, 2024 21:59:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by El Borak on Mar 2, 2024 22:03:22 GMT -5
Here is the video he is commenting on
|
|
|
|
Post by El Borak on Mar 2, 2024 22:04:01 GMT -5
I will have to watch both of them to see if the outrage is warranted or not. What do you think?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Semi-Retired Gamer on Mar 8, 2024 19:14:07 GMT -5
I will be watching both of these videos and commenting. I'm very interested to see if they jacked this up as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jakob Grimm on Mar 13, 2024 23:19:49 GMT -5
Have you seen this one.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Semi-Retired Gamer on Mar 16, 2024 10:28:55 GMT -5
Jakob Grimm have an exalt for providing this video. I just watched it recently. Disgraceful.
|
|
|
|
Post by muddywater on Mar 28, 2024 17:03:41 GMT -5
This just sucks, I would really like to have that book, but then on top of it being really high priced, they go and prove that they are too scummy to give money too.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on Mar 30, 2024 13:58:39 GMT -5
This just sucks, I would really like to have that book, but then on top of it being really high priced, they go and prove that they are too scummy to give money too. I am right there with you, I really want to get this because of the drafts and the extra information from other documents and of course early prints of the supplements are included too. But the price is too much for to and I hate to give them money. Really a bummer. |
|
|
|
Post by alaharon123 on Mar 30, 2024 15:25:15 GMT -5
The person in the WOTC video has not read about the Rules for Middle Earth that Chainmail was inspired by :/ I don't see what people are up in arms about. "1974 D&D would not pass an inclusivity review in 2024 because it uses the class name Fighting-Man, and many other reasons" (presumably the big ones would be sticking to he/him pronouns, generally assuming the reader and player is male, and having all art depicting women be suggestive). Of course it wouldn't! Why is pointing out that a 1974 game is dated a bad thing? You can love a game and recognize that it's a product of its time. Yes D&D has come a long way inclusivity-wise since 1974, even if it hasn't in other ways. I don't see how that's remotely controversial. They're not censoring it or anything. It feels like people are already mad at WOTC, so they're just looking for more reasons to be mad despite there being nothing here to actually be mad about.The guy in the first video in this thread making like this other stuff is equivalent to what will be in the book lol it's completely different content. Even the version of OD&D is different. I feel like he didn't even watch the video until the part he doesn't like. The guy in the second video clearly didn't, and probably didn't read the LBBs either. Kinda funny to see the woman at the end of that video be like hey actually now that I've heard him talk, what he said isn't actually that bad to be honest. Personally I plan on asking my local library to order a copy if they don't do that on their own and I'll borrow it from them (I don't really buy books). I noticed in rewatching the video that it has the Part I from Europa magazine #5 that we have Part II online already from #6-8, so I'm excited to read that along with presumably Part III. There'll probably be other fanzine content in there as well that there hasn't been any way of accessing until now, so it's quite exciting to be able to read. Though it is ironic that we've gotten our hands on the draft they're excited about since this video was released. I hope the Beyond This Point Be Dragons version is in the book. It's unclear from the video if when talking about different versions he means that there'll be that version and other versions too, or if he means versions like Warlock and whatnot Admin: alaharon123 many of us on this forum are in our late 60's, our 70's and some are older than that. We have been playing OD&D for 45-50 years each and what you are missing is how deeply insulting the whole concept of an inclusivity review is in the first place to those of our generation. We are of the generation that were taught to treat women with respect by our mothers and we followed that instruction, and in most cases, we got married, lived a good life and passed it on to our kids. You do not understand how condescending and insulting that part of the video is to us. You got a lot of push back because you came across as defending their snark and trying to justify it, and worse you did not come across as respecting OD&D as a game that we have invested hundreds or even thousands of hours into as gamers. You say in a later post that you think OD&D is awesome, but that is not what you lead with in this post, that was way on down the page. You might have gotten a more charitable read if you had lead with that. Just sayin'.
I made a few edits to posts by you and TPD and JD below. |
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on Mar 30, 2024 15:45:07 GMT -5
The person in the WOTC video has not read about the Rules for Middle Earth that Chainmail was inspired by :/ I don't see what people are up in arms about. "1974 D&D would not pass an inclusivity review in 2024 because it uses the class name Fighting-Man, and many other reasons" (presumably the big ones would be sticking to he/him pronouns, generally assuming the reader and player is male, and having all art depicting women be suggestive). Of course it wouldn't! Why is pointing out that a 1974 game is dated a bad thing? You can love a game and recognize that it's a product of its time. Yes D&D has come a long way inclusivity-wise since 1974, even if it hasn't in other ways. I don't see how that's remotely controversial. They're not censoring it or anything. It feels like people are already mad at WOTC, so they're just looking for more reasons to be mad despite there being nothing here to actually be mad about. Yeah, the pronouns are standard English, until the recent complaining. Standard English in writing uses he/him in the same way the term mankind is used, as inclusive terms. It was not until 20+ years after 1974 that people stopped understanding standard English. Claiming it is dated on that basis is rather silly. Language changes for good and bad. It needs no excuse, when you read 18th century poetry, no normal person, thinks about how that would be written today, they enjoy it for what it is. As for inclusivity, D&D is LESS NOT MORE inclusive today, than it was back then. Back then the only people of any persuasion, (sex, politics, religion, etc) that were ever turned away were rude jerks who deliberately tried to suck the fun of the room. Personally I never encountered any of these people, I have never turned anyone away from my table IRL, although I have heard of people that I would have turned away. Back then we wanted as many people to play as we could get. My game back then had 50/50 men and women. It was awesome. |
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on Mar 30, 2024 15:46:08 GMT -5
The Len Patt, fantasy wargame rules. |
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on Mar 30, 2024 15:46:56 GMT -5
Personally I plan on asking my local library to order a copy if they don't do that on their own and I'll borrow it from them (I don't really buy books). I noticed in rewatching the video that it has the Part I from Europa magazine #5 that we have Part II online already from #6-8, so I'm excited to read that along with presumably Part III. There'll probably be other fanzine content in there as well that there hasn't been any way of accessing until now, so it's quite exciting to be able to read. Though it is ironic that we've gotten our hands on the draft they're excited about since this video was released. I hope the Beyond This Point Be Dragons version is in the book. It's unclear from the video if when talking about different versions he means that there'll be that version and other versions too, or if he means versions like Warlock and whatnot You can get the library to buy specific books? I did not know you could do that. |
|
|
|
Post by alaharon123 on Mar 30, 2024 16:09:12 GMT -5
Yeah, the pronouns are standard English, until the recent complaining. Standard English in writing uses he/him in the same way the term mankind is used, as inclusive terms. It was not until 20+ years after 1974 that people stopped understanding standard English. Claiming it is dated on that basis is rather silly. Language changes for good and bad. It needs no excuse It was standard English. Then the language evolved to be more inclusive. But if it were just the pronouns, I'd agree with you, but it's not. OD&D very much assumes the reader is male. It is worth pointing out to a modern audience that if they're going to spend $100 on a book, they should know that said book is going to contain text that they may feel excluded by. It's a large purchase, the prospective buyer should be informed. As for inclusivity, D&D is LESS NOT MORE inclusive today, than it was back then. Back then, we didn't ask people about their sexuality and no one was rude enough and a jerk enough to GO FULL TMI You're talking about the people, I'm talking about the text. You can get the library to buy specific books? I did not know you could do that. You can generally request that yeah. Depending on the library, they may or may not grant your request. I imagine many libraries wouldn't buy a book unless multiple people request the same book. I've requested five or six books from my local library in a big city and they purchased three of them, though one of them they have been saying is on order for eight months and they still don't have it. Dunno what's up with that. The ones they did not buy were self-published books. However it is that my library buys books seems to be limited to buying books that are in print by publishers. They have the 5e books, so I'm sure however WOTC publishes books counts, and if they don't purchase it on my own, they'll probably approve my suggestion to purchase it. I imagine the situation is worse for smaller libraries, but I don't know. If your library doesn't get a copy and denies your suggestion they purchase one, they probably have Inter-Library Loan as well, though you might not be able to get it that way for a while after it's released due to all initial copies being borrowed by patrons. Libraries are pretty great, big fan
|
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on Mar 30, 2024 16:29:47 GMT -5
Yeah, the pronouns are standard English, until the recent complaining. Standard English in writing uses he/him in the same way the term mankind is used, as inclusive terms. It was not until 20+ years after 1974 that people stopped understanding standard English. Claiming it is dated on that basis is rather silly. Language changes for good and bad. It needs no excuse It was standard English. Then the language evolved to be more inclusive. But if it were just the pronouns, I'd agree with you, but it's not. OD&D very much assumes the reader is male. It is worth pointing out to a modern audience that if they're going to spend $100 on a book, they should know that said book is going to contain text that they may feel excluded by. It's a large purchase, the prospective buyer should be informed. As for inclusivity, D&D is LESS NOT MORE inclusive today, than it was back then. Back then, we didn't ask people about their sexuality and no one was rude enough and a jerk enough to GO FULL TMI You're talking about the people, I'm talking about the text. I am talking about the text as well, having played 5E for 18 months during the lockdowns, it is IMO most definitely less inclusive, but that is the least of its faults. As for OD&D, I did almost a line by line commentary on it, I do not see that it assumes the reader is male, it assumes that the reader is into fantasy. If someone reads OD&D and feels excluded, that is on them, it has nothing to do with the rules. Bitd, the four years in college 1975-1979, the women were consistently the first to show up at the game table twice a week, there was no evidence that they felt excluded, some games the majority of the players were women. |
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on Mar 30, 2024 16:32:14 GMT -5
You can generally request that yeah. Depending on the library, they may or may not grant your request. I imagine many libraries wouldn't buy a book unless multiple people request the same book. I've requested five or six books from my local library in a big city and they purchased three of them, though one of them they have been saying is on order for eight months and they still don't have it. Dunno what's up with that. The ones they did not buy were self-published books. However it is that my library buys books seems to be limited to buying books that are in print by publishers. They have the 5e books, so I'm sure however WOTC publishes books counts, and if they don't purchase it on my own, they'll probably approve my suggestion to purchase it. I imagine the situation is worse for smaller libraries, but I don't know. If your library doesn't get a copy and denies your suggestion they purchase one, they probably have Inter-Library Loan as well, though you might not be able to get it that way for a while after it's released due to all initial copies being borrowed by patrons. Libraries are pretty great, big fan I love libraries, I have borrowed many, many thousands of books over the years. |
|
|
|
Post by hengest on Mar 30, 2024 18:16:05 GMT -5
It was standard English. Then the language evolved to be more inclusive. But if it were just the pronouns, I'd agree with you, but it's not. OD&D very much assumes the reader is male. It is worth pointing out to a modern audience that if they're going to spend $100 on a book, they should know that said book is going to contain text that they may feel excluded by. It's a large purchase, the prospective buyer should be informed. You're talking about the people, I'm talking about the text. I am talking about the text as well, having played 5E for 18 months during the lockdowns, it is IMO most definitely less inclusive, but that is the least of its faults. As for OD&D, I did almost a line by line commentary on it, I do not see that it assumes the reader is male, it assumes that the reader is into fantasy. If someone reads OD&D and feels excluded, that is on them, it has nothing to do with the rules. Bitd, the four years in college 1975-1979, the women were consistently the first to show up at the game table twice a week, there was no evidence that they felt excluded, some games the majority of the players were women. I also do not know what in the books assumes the reader is male, although I haven't reviewed them in some time. I would like to know what I missed, or what can be taken that way. My saying this is not a challenge to anyone -- just a statement that I am intrigued to know. |
|
|
|
Post by hengest on Mar 30, 2024 18:46:27 GMT -5
You can generally request that yeah. Depending on the library, they may or may not grant your request. I imagine many libraries wouldn't buy a book unless multiple people request the same book. I've requested five or six books from my local library in a big city and they purchased three of them, though one of them they have been saying is on order for eight months and they still don't have it. Dunno what's up with that. The ones they did not buy were self-published books. However it is that my library buys books seems to be limited to buying books that are in print by publishers. They have the 5e books, so I'm sure however WOTC publishes books counts, and if they don't purchase it on my own, they'll probably approve my suggestion to purchase it. I imagine the situation is worse for smaller libraries, but I don't know. If your library doesn't get a copy and denies your suggestion they purchase one, they probably have Inter-Library Loan as well, though you might not be able to get it that way for a while after it's released due to all initial copies being borrowed by patrons. Libraries are pretty great, big fan I love libraries, I have borrowed many, many thousands of books over the years. Could not agree more. And about requests, definitely ask how to do this. Most libraries take requests and it costs you $0 to submit it. Academic collections will often by stuff if a member of the institution requests it and it basically is of academic interest. Public libraries definitely do take requests into consideration; after all, they are there to serve the public. They would rather buy something someone wants than something no one wants. |
|
|
|
Post by alaharon123 on Mar 30, 2024 23:38:40 GMT -5
I've read the LBBs too recently to do a close read, but doing some skimming, there's Fighting-Man, many of the titles for levels, Men & Magic, the use of the word men everywhere, the use of he/him pronouns (not a massive deal on its own, but in combination with everything else...), the art of any humanoid that's actually in the game being of a man, the art depicting women all being sexualized and of types not in the game (beautiful witch, amazon, etc), the leaders of monster humanoids are all male (goblin king etc), there's mermen but not the more well-known mermaids, in general you get the vibe that the author has a blind spot that anyone who's not male would be playing this game. Which we know is accurate! Gygax was rendered speechless when he got on the phone with Lee Gold and found out she's a woman. He was of the opinion that " females do not play RPGs because of a difference in brain function". I get the impression that in 1974, most things were written this way, but if you read it with fresh eyes and try to empathize with what it reads like to someone who's not a man, it jumps out a lot. Even in the 1978 AD&D Player's Handbook they changed the name of Fighting-Man to Fighter, added a paragraph in the introduction explicitly saying to change level titles to female equivalents if you want, switched from "his" to "his or her", added art depicting a woman PC, probably other changes too, I haven't read all of 1e. They knew already then that they goofed inclusivity-wise in OD&D, this isn't remotely anything new |
|
|
|
Post by hengest on Mar 31, 2024 7:40:36 GMT -5
I've read the LBBs too recently to do a close read, but doing some skimming, there's Fighting-Man, many of the titles for levels, Men & Magic, the use of the word men everywhere, the use of he/him pronouns (not a massive deal on its own, but in combination with everything else...), the art of any humanoid that's actually in the game being of a man, the art depicting women all being sexualized and of types not in the game (beautiful witch, amazon, etc), the leaders of monster humanoids are all male (goblin king etc), there's mermen but not the more well-known mermaids, in general you get the vibe that the author has a blind spot that anyone who's not male would be playing this game. Which we know is accurate! Gygax was rendered speechless when he got on the phone with Lee Gold and found out she's a woman. He was of the opinion that " females do not play RPGs because of a difference in brain function". I get the impression that in 1974, most things were written this way, but if you read it with fresh eyes and try to empathize with what it reads like to someone who's not a man, it jumps out a lot. Even in the 1978 AD&D Player's Handbook they changed the name of Fighting-Man to Fighter, added a paragraph in the introduction explicitly saying to change level titles to female equivalents if you want, switched from "his" to "his or her", added art depicting a woman PC, probably other changes too, I haven't read all of 1e. They knew already then that they goofed inclusivity-wise in OD&D, this isn't remotely anything new I hear you. Thanks for clarifying. Makes pretty good sense when you lay it all out like that. I might argue in private that "men" in "Men and Magic" suits the theme, with "men" meaning "humans," as in the quote "The Lord had but one paire of men in paradise" (1597) from Bishop J. King. There it clearly means unambiguously "humans," and not "adult male humans." However, I don't expect this argument to go very far with anyone in 2024, I get it. Interesting about the changes made in the Player's Handbook. I wasn't consciously aware of any of this. Good post. Exalt for being informative. |
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on Mar 31, 2024 13:15:00 GMT -5
I've read the LBBs too recently to do a close read, but doing some skimming, there's Fighting-Man, many of the titles for levels, Men & Magic, the use of the word men everywhere, the use of he/him pronouns (not a massive deal on its own, but in combination with everything else...), the art of any humanoid that's actually in the game being of a man, the art depicting women all being sexualized and of types not in the game (beautiful witch, amazon, etc), the leaders of monster humanoids are all male (goblin king etc), there's mermen but not the more well-known mermaids, in general you get the vibe that the author has a blind spot that anyone who's not male would be playing this game. Which we know is accurate! Gygax was rendered speechless when he got on the phone with Lee Gold and found out she's a woman. He was of the opinion that " females do not play RPGs because of a difference in brain function". I get the impression that in 1974, most things were written this way, but if you read it with fresh eyes and try to empathize with what it reads like to someone who's not a man, it jumps out a lot. Even in the 1978 AD&D Player's Handbook they changed the name of Fighting-Man to Fighter, added a paragraph in the introduction explicitly saying to change level titles to female equivalents if you want, switched from "his" to "his or her", added art depicting a woman PC, probably other changes too, I haven't read all of 1e. They knew already then that they goofed inclusivity-wise in OD&D, this isn't remotely anything new Men & Magic: Bottom of page 17 two witches sitting at a cauldron - nothing sexualized at all about that, it just looks like they are weaving a spell Bottom of page 27 Beautiful Witch - nothing sexualized about her, unless you are complaining because she is not ugly, stooped with a crooked nose and warts. Bottom of page 27 Amazon - drawn the traditional way topless, and not sexualized, if she were sexualized the boobs would be way more prominent in the picture. Witches were not in the game as PCs, but anyone who wanted them could have very easily added them. Fun fact of 30+ women who played in my college game over four years, all of them played Fighting Men and at other times played Magic-Users. They like the guys ignored the level titles completely, they just used the class titles and never batted an eye at the term Fighting-Men and just used it. Several of them were English Majors, none of them were shrinking violets. Several of them were artists and yes, they drew their characters a whole lot sexier than the Amazon. And had they played an Amazon she would have been topless, they were all very well read in history, mythology and fantasy. This whole vibe you talk about is a 2024 foisting of modern political agenda and ideology onto the history of things that were not written with bad intention, but there is a desperate attempt to make it so. They did not goof inclusivity-wise in OD&D, that is an uncharitable and disingenuous modern reading of things. But here is what many people do not understand. The reason the people in the video offend us is the fact that they are hypocrites, full blown, hard core hypocrites.As for Gygax, he did let his daughters play in his game, and he did hire women in creative positions, so his view changed over time. But no one is pretending Gygax was a saint, on the other hand he was not the villain that some people try to make him out to be either. So we have covered the anti-D&D and pro-D&D arguments. Enough said! |
|
|
|
Post by alaharon123 on Mar 31, 2024 14:42:18 GMT -5
I don't hate any of the things I mentioned, I just bring them all up to show how in aggregate, they show that OD&D was very clearly written with only a male audience in mind, thus being exclusionary towards others, even if they played anyway. The point I was trying to make was that all the art in the LBBs is drawn for a male audience. Here's some tits to look at, here's a suggestive pose. Oh you want to see what you look like playing a fighting-man? Here's a picture of a barbarian. darn you look cool. The assumption is that the reader is male. If it was written for women, it'd have different art. I have nothing against sexualized drawings, I'm merely pointing out that the art is one element that shows who the prospective audience is. There to appeal to men rather than anyone else. And thus being somewhat exclusionary towards non-men, or at the very least, not being inclusionary. You point out that you have to make up your own rules to play as any of the women pictured. Indeed, that was my point. The drawings of characters there are rules for are male (with the exception of the medusa monster), others are female. Because OD&D is written for men, with others not even being an afterthought. This whole vibe you talk about is a 2024 foisting of modern political agenda and ideology onto the history of things that were not written with bad intention, but there is a desperate attempt to make it so. They did not goof inclusivity-wise in OD&D, that is an uncharitable and disingenuous modern reading of things. As I pointed out, this is even from the perspective of 1978 as evidenced by comparing the Player's Handbook to OD&D. But even if it wasn't, that's the point of the people in the video. To be aware that you're going to be reading things from a 1970s perspective rather than from a 2024 perspective As for Gygax, [...] no one is pretending Gygax was a saint, on the other hand he was not the villain that some people try to make him out to be either. Just want to point out that neither I nor the WOTC video made him out to be a villain. Nor am I or the video trying to villainize OD&D. OD&D is cool as hell. It's got its problems, but there's a reason WOTC see it worth it to put all this energy into creating this book digging into the creation of OD&D. Because it's goshdarn cool and awesome. Even with its problems. |
|
|
|
Post by The Semi-Retired Gamer on Mar 31, 2024 15:05:14 GMT -5
MOD VOICE ON: This thread is getting a little heated. Let's take a moment to collect our thoughts and not escalate. We all don't have to agree. Let's keep the discussion firmly on the videos and OD&D with a focus on discussion.
Admin: I want to echo this post and suggest everyone follow the given advice.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on Mar 31, 2024 15:16:08 GMT -5
I don't hate any of the things I mentioned, I just bring them all up to show how in aggregate, they show that OD&D was very clearly written with only a male audience in mind, thus being exclusionary towards others, even if they played anyway.I disagree, I maintain that none of the bolded part of the statement is in anyway accurate. The point I was trying to make was that all the art in the LBBs is drawn for a male audience. Here's some tits to look at, here's a suggestive pose. Oh you want to see what you look like playing a fighting-man? Here's a picture of a barbarian. darn you look cool. The assumption is that the reader is male. First most of the art is really crappy, some of it is traced and not even drawn. One picture, the Amazon is topless, that is the accurate depiction. There are no suggestive poses in the whole book. Other than the cover there are no cool pictures of men either. The art is the thing lacking in the book. The beautiful witch and the Amazon are the only two pictures in interior the three books that display any artistic talent at all, yet that is "not inclusive?" So if the pictures of the men were better drawn and a some badly drawn pictures of women were included that would have made it better? If it was written for women, it'd have different art. If it had been written for women, how would it be different? Would there have been more women, all of them ugly? That is what modern "creators" seem to think. But out in the real world both men and women want to look at attractive people. Every recently I have seen a lot of ink about women characters in video games being made ugly and it is hurting sales because no one wants to sit and watch that. As I pointed out, this is even from the perspective of 1978 as evidenced by comparing the Player's Handbook to OD&D. But even if it wasn't, that's the point of the people in the video. To be aware that you're going to be reading things from a 1970s perspective rather than from a 2024 perspective That is really a very funny example to use. In the PHB they changed Fighting-Men to Fighter, but then the strength of a female character was limited, something that did not exist in OD&D, that does not sound like a win to me. I also think it is offensive that anyone thinks you need to tell people "To be aware that you're going to be reading things from a 1970s perspective rather than from a 2024 perspective." Just want to point out that neither I nor the WOTC video made him out to be a villain. Nor am I or the video trying to villainize OD&D. OD&D is cool as hell. It's got its problems, but there's a reason WOTC see it worth it to put all this energy into creating this book digging into the creation of OD&D. Because it's goshdarn cool and awesome. Even with its problems. Actually the video is making out Gygax to be a villain and it is indeed trying to villainize OD&D. The only reason they did not go through and "sanitize" and re-write and ret-con everything is because at least one person in the company remembers the OGL scandal and knows they could not get away with doing it. They are doing this book to try to regain some of the goodwill they lost, but they are being awkward and cringey in how they are going about it. As for the two people in the video, those two do not in anyway thing OD&D is cool, they are both making it clear they are disgusted by OD&D. |
|
|
|
Post by alaharon123 on Mar 31, 2024 15:57:19 GMT -5
As for the two people in the video, those two do not in anyway thing OD&D is cool, they are both making it clear they are disgusted by OD&D. I think the rest of the video makes clear that this is not the case. I'll take my cue from The Semi-Retired Gamer and not respond to the rest of your comment. |
|
|
|
Post by simrion on Mar 31, 2024 18:22:03 GMT -5
I'll keep an eye out for this "tome" on the secondary market much like I got a copy of Art & Arcana. Certainly don't care to throw $ at Hasborg. I'll wait as I'm sure some deluded early adopter will through their copy up on "the 'Bay" or thee might be some scratch and dents available eventually.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on Mar 31, 2024 18:31:33 GMT -5
At the first link (the article in reference to Lee Gold) it mentions this:
As a starving college student at the time who scraped together money for college, I was surprised when I first read that statement four years ago. At the time I did not think the price was outrageous, I didn't even think it was high priced. I found the price to be quite reasonable for what I was getting back then.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on Mar 31, 2024 18:45:33 GMT -5
At the first link (the article in reference to Lee Gold) it mentions this: As a starving college student at the time who scraped together money for college, I was surprised when I first read that statement four years ago. At the time I did not think the price was outrageous, I didn't even think it was high priced. I found the price to be quite reasonable for what I was getting back then. Well $10 then is $58 now. Coke was 25 cents then as were candy bars.  It merely is a matter of perspective bud. That is the thing though, $58 seems a lot larger to me now, than $10 seemed back then. I think it is a matter of perceived value. Back then I knew I was getting something of value when I bought something, these days the default perception is that I am getting ripped off. |
|
|
|
Post by hengest on Mar 31, 2024 18:51:09 GMT -5
Well $10 then is $58 now. Coke was 25 cents then as were candy bars. It merely is a matter of perspective bud. That is the thing though, $58 seems a lot larger to me now, than $10 seemed back then. I think it is a matter of perceived value. Back then I knew I was getting something of value when I bought something, these days the default perception is that I am getting ripped off.Sad to say, I also have this perception. |
|
|
|
Post by simrion on Mar 31, 2024 19:29:54 GMT -5
At the first link (the article in reference to Lee Gold) it mentions this: As a starving college student at the time who scraped together money for college, I was surprised when I first read that statement four years ago. At the time I did not think the price was outrageous, I didn't even think it was high priced. I found the price to be quite reasonable for what I was getting back then. In hindsight though, gas was .30 a gallon or there about so... |
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on Mar 31, 2024 19:31:31 GMT -5
At the first link (the article in reference to Lee Gold) it mentions this: As a starving college student at the time who scraped together money for college, I was surprised when I first read that statement four years ago. At the time I did not think the price was outrageous, I didn't even think it was high priced. I found the price to be quite reasonable for what I was getting back then. In hindsight though, gas was .30 a gallon or there about so... Yeah, I still remember when it first went to $1. |
|
It merely is a matter of perspective bud.