| Smashchu2 said: No, your dodging the question, and you have shown no evidence you know anything about disruption. You are the worst person to argue becuase the points get lost in a mess. You avoid every direct question, which is why I consider you wrong. A person with a strong argument can give up an answer. Even a person who doesn't know whjat they heck they are talking about would at least give a wrong answer. You are flat out no giving one, which leads me to beleive you don't know, and any answer you give would reveal that you are lieing. I have yet to see anything from you that you know disruption. Also, you fail at interpritations. You are saying that the Nintendo could not disrupt and I've explained how you are (by saying they could not, you are saying it is possible, despite the fact you never say why it is possible. Heck, even if I was wrong, you could at least answer why it is not possible). Alby_de_Wolf will never be wrong because anytime he could be, he dodges the question and tries to deflect. No point in argueing him. Give me a reason to beleive you and I might. EDIT:Note how his post talks about very little. He responds to absolutly nothing and hangs on one thing I said (which wasn't relevant anyway). Why wont he comment on all the stuff I said? Because if he does, he might be wrong. |
I added some things to my previous answer before reading this last post of yours.
Edit: BTW you keep on doing the same error, wherever Christensen talks about high likelyhood for disruptor to succeed and very hard for the incumbent to devise and carry out an effective reaction, you transform it into certainty.
Edit 2: The other error you are repeating is giving to my anwers a different meaning. Or is it done on purpose?
Edit 3: The plain fact that I state that I cannot be sure implies automatically that I can definitely be wrong, so don't put this thing in my words, you firmly believe I'm wrongly persuaded I'm right because you have certainties, I haven't. You are indeed scared by anybody's uncertainties about your certainties. And the other error you repeat is equalling "uncertain that something is" with "certain that something isn't", for the last time, THEY AREN'T THE SAME!!!!!
