| Aielyn said:
At this point, I'm stopping this. You're continuing to ignore context. By the way, I couldn't possibly respond to the assertion that 3D World failed to move Wii U's, given that we had NO data on Wii U sales for that week, no sense of whether sales increased or decreased, no sense of ANYTHING relevant to Wii U system sales. There's a difference between responding to one of a set of points, and responding to a fragment of an argument without paying attention to the rest of the argument. Pavolink asserted three things. I responded to one of them. I asserted one thing, with a detailed explanation. You picked out one piece of that explanation, then argued against it without paying attention to the context, and thus completely missed what I was actually saying, and failed to actually address what I was talking about. And you keep bringing up something that was a year old. At this point, I'm pretty confident that you're not arguing because of anything substantive, but because of some problem you have with me (and not what I've said in this thread). This is NOT the place for your little crusade. |
We knew that none of the bundled software was in the top 40. It didn't give us an exact number, but it gave us an inkling into it. We didn't have an exact number for 3D World either, but you had no issue arguing that point of his.
Regardless, you said "The context of my post, and of his, were in complete alignment." Not that half of his post couldn't be commented on. Also the only actual data for 3D World in that first post of yours was positions. I replied to it with positions of other Mario games and you became indignant. Now you are saying that he had three arguments and picked out one (even though you left part of another argument in the quote). What happened to that "complete alignment" and "the quoted line epitomising the entire post."? You really should have examined your own posts before going on this attack on my manner of posting. So who is it that was ignoring context again?
Really, considering Pavolink's only point of data was the position, surely my first reply was much more in context than your own.
I didn't bring up your predictions last year until my third post, and that was only because the arguments you were making were so similar to last year. It's not like you commented on it when it was new, so I don't see the relevance of it being a year old.
Edit: Also for all your talk of context and quoting and picking out sentences, it is rather amusing that the only part of my post you quoted was the sentence you refuse to address. You sure seem to hate when people ignore what you perceive to be the context, but feel fine ignoring it in the posts of others.
