| Sky Render said: Once again, you prove no comprehension of what I have said. All you have highlighted is that your personal beliefs do not align with one single thing I said, and that you have thus discounted everything else I have said in the process simply because of that disagreement. Instead of considering why I said that, you have assumed that since you feel it does not apply to him, it must not be true. Why are you making such an illogical assumption? |
"Some believe genius is being able to see what others do not. But true genius is being able to explain that which others don't see to them in a way that they understand and that doesn't offend them. Malstrom is decidedly a genius in that regard, which is more than I can say for the sorts who say "you're wrong", rant on about theories and rules, utilize statistics in place of qualitative arguments, and then simply refuse to clarify in a way that uninformed individuals on the subject would understand.
"I believe genius is being able to see what others do not and many notable geniuses have been betrayed by a pack mentality which attempts to tear them down in life but lauds them after death for finding insights which truely frighten and confuse those they attempt to teach. One common thread which links these tragic geniuses such as (Insert proof/examples here) which links them to Malstrom is while he is proved right time and again for his frighteningly insightful views on the realities of the computer games market, the 'old guard' attempt to stiffle and belittle his insight. "
Ok I rewrote what you were saying in the first paragraph with my own. Do you see how one might be better than the other? It took me litterally 2 minutes to write and I couldn't be bothered to proof read it.
Your first rhetorical statement is fine really, its just that you don't support your premise that Malstrom is a genius.
Tease.
