theprof00 said:
I deal in facts, so I have no need to be as vague as your above post.
1. CGI said that the title was harsh, and clearly not the implication nvidia meant.
2. Kain responds that it is only harsh if you read it incorrectly, because the content is fine.
3. Prof says that Kain sounds like he's trying to disagree with CGI, but is actually agreeing.
4. Kain responds that Prof must mean disagreeing.
5. Prof says that CGI's opinion is that the content is fine, but the title misleadingly harsh, and that Kain's opinion is that the content is fine, but the title only harsh if one was mislead by the title.
6. Kain disagrees, saying that there was disagreement, specifically, disagreement that the title was harsh, though could have been mistakenly understood as harsh.
7. Prof says Kain would be objectively wrong in that disagreement.
8. Kain responds that the only misunderstanding would be if the reader jumped to a conclusion.
9. Prof retorts that he is simply reading the English, and that no assumptions were required.
10. Kain asks why would I assume Nvidia is talking about the price.
11. I restate that no assumptions were made, the literal translation supports the message that I've called misleading. Says misleading titles are a common thing. Restates that title was intentionally misleading.
12. Kain assures Prof that [Prof] made an assumption about the meaning "Ps4 not worth the cost", other than the literal translation. Says "IF A WRITER IS CLEVER ENOUGH TO WRITE EYE-CATCHING HEADLINES THAT ARE ALSO TECHNICALLY ACCURATE, THERE IS NO PROBLEM"
13. Prof says that quoted sentence directly implies that the title was cleverly misleading and that Kain is now again agreeing though thinking himself in disagreement.
14. Kain then says if Prof read it wrong, that is Prof's fault, and doesn't mean the title was misleading. Calls prof feverish and delusional. Insists that Prof jumped to a conclusion other than the literal translation.
Again, there is no argument here, Kain. Just facts. Facts that say you've been calling the the title misleading and not-misleading at the same time. The definition of misleading is to be intentionally misdirecting.
{evidence 1} In (6) you say "the title could be mistaken for something else".
{evidence 2} In (8) you say that the misunderstanding would lie in the reader making an incorrect assumption based on the wording.
{evidence 3} In (12) Kain says that if a writer is clever enough to trick the reader but simultaneously tell the truth, then it is not misleading.
You have 100% called the title misleading, yet refuse to specifically use the word misleading, using your own incorrect definition of the term.
Case closed.
|
