C3PX said:I am not a person that has a hard time communicating my thoughts, the problem is you are a person that wants to pick fights all the time.
I am tired of explaining every sentence of every post I write that you don't understand.
So, I'm a person that wants to pick fights all the time?
Well, if I now follow your logic, when I spoke of the competition between N64 and the PSX, I now take it that you believe I was actually attempting to pick a fight with you (as apposed to actually wanting to discuss issues that interested me). How curious.
This is a rather strange place for our discussion to go, so I'll just say this: to the degree you perceive any "fight" between you and me in this present discussion, I think you should lay the blame squarely on yourself and not me. When I look at who's actually doing what here, you're the one talking about "outrage" and "fights" (not me).
However, I don't think saying anything more than that is necessary and if you want to discuss this "fight" nonsense (and who's supposedly starting it) then we can do that over the forum's private messaging (or at least start a different thread). For my part I want to discuss the actual "video gaming" issues at hand. If you don't want to discuss the issues I want to discuss (and you feel I'm only"fighting" with you, or not understanding you, or whatever) then you simply don't need to respond.
C3PX said:
I said the N64 kicked the PSX's ass. You said, the N64 didn't kick the PSX's ass and that the PSX clearly won the war. I agree that it lost the war, when I said it kicked the PSX's ass, I meant because it is a better console and hardware/quality game wise it kicked the PSX's ass. That is why I wrote the offending line.
I primarily follow the logic of what people say based on the context of a discussion. If people are saying things that I believe are logically incorrect, according to what would generally be understood by most people from those words, and I have a personal reason to discuss that statement, then I will pick out those points and discuss them.
We were talking about sales and how that relates to the quality of a console. You brought up graphics and said that the "N64 still kicked the PS pathetic little ass." I then brought up the fact that the N64 was weak in comparison to the PSX in some key ways as a way to prove that the N64 did not kick the Playstation's "pathetic little ass."
You then focused on my line about how the PSX sold more units (which wasn't a reason for the PSX's greatness but just a supportive sidenote on my part) as something you already knew (which I was already guessing you knew but I wanted to simply bring up the data point for the sake of our conversation). You then brought up the weakest of my reasons for why the PSX was not a "pathetic" peice of hardware that got its ass kicked ("long and involved") and proceeded to go off on a long rant about why I was potentially wrong with my specific point there. Then, you finished up by saying that higher sales does not mean higher quality.
I already understood your point about how you thought the N64 kicked the ass of the PSX in terms of graphics (as apposed to sales). I was actually arguing against that specific point of yours and brought up clear reasons to disagree with your statement. You then proceeded to respond only to my weakest reason for why the PSX was not crap and ignored the rest of my reasons. You also responded to my statement that the PSX had more sales as if you wanted to argue against someone who thought that point would be a direct reason why the PSX was an objectively better system. All the while my other points in defense of the PSX's hardware strength were ignored by you despite their logical relevence to the issues you were actually responding to.
All in all, as far as I can tell, I had no misunderstanding in this discussion and needed no special explanations from you. After that I did go on to be confused as to why you argued some issues and not others, but that was not a problem with what you said or didn't say, but, in actuality, a problem with me understanding why you chose to say what you said (and why you chose to leave other things unsaid). As such, I went on to ask you a question that you went on to label "outrageous" and the rest of our discussion has branched from there.
C3PX said:
I said "outrageous assumtions" because you do that all the time. Like assuming Lj thought you accussed him of being a terrorist when there was absolutely no reason to assume he thought any such thing. Since there was no indication that I hadn't read your whole post, it is a funny thing to be worried about. Don't certain points in people's posts stick out to you at times? I see people only respond to one point made in someone elses post all the time, I don't see that as a reason to suppose they didn't read the rest of the post, just that that one sentence is what mattered to them.
You're bringing up issues from another thread now? If you really want me to reply to what you were saying in that thread (which I was getting bored of) then I will, but when (and if) I do it will be in that thread, not in this one.
http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Depressed-Emo-Nation-and-the-Lords-Resistance-Army/topic/9980/
Thanks.