Intrinsic said:
Pls, not wasting another word on me is something I would consider as you doing me a favor. Arguing facts? How is it possible that someone can ignore what was actually being said 3 times over now and take all this off to this strange offbase personal tangent. If you actually read what I was saying and not play this victim role you would actually see that contrary to what you may think, I actually was not and never was attacking 'you" or the WiiU. But yh............. |
Topic of thread: PS4 vs XBO+WiiU by end of year.
Discussion I was having: PS4 vs XBO+WiiU by end of year.
Your post in response: Wii U boost is nonsense, as although I agree that it'll get the biggest boost, it's not really because absolute numbers.
My response to that: Um, you might want to look at the context of the discussion.
Your response to that: I brought up Wii U, so it's a valid discussion. And the boost can't possibly mean what you say (even though you never claimed what I say you claimed).
My response: Nobody claimed that, and in the context of the discussion, the boost as described would very much have the effect I actually claimed.
Your response: Wii U sales are "shit"! And you're just arguing semantics*.
Your posts haven't been on-topic, they've been specifically targetted at Wii U, and they've ignored the context of everything I've said. And you've used numbers picked out of the air to justify a claim when the entire thread is about discussion of actual numbers... and when I pointed out what the real numbers (VGChartz numbers, that is) say, you then tried to attack me for somehow misrepresenting the numbers... and in the meantime, invoked average sales since January when everybody had been discussing sales in the last few months.
So you can talk big about having said something three times over and me ignoring them, but the fact of the matter is, you've ignored the context of the thread, and the content of the thread, and attacked me for daring to suggest a Wii U boost even though you can't assert that it's not going to happen, with no basis within my comments. You could have constructed a reasonable argument for why you think the boost won't be enough... but instead, you chose to attack me illegitimately via the concept of the boost.
Of course, your most recent attack on me was posted as a reply to somebody else. You could have simply explained your argument against mine, but you instead attacked me in your response to that person. At least when I make an assertion about a user, I do it to their face.
*(which I interpret as an attack on me, by the way - when you assert that I'm using underhanded methods of debating, rather than addressing the actual point, that's an attack)
EDIT: To see what a reasonable discussion looks like, have a look at the discussion between me and DerNebel. We debate the topic, we challenge each others' assertions, but it's civil and on-topic, it's an exchange of arguments rather than an attempt to discredit each other or in any way attack any of the systems.
