| DucksUnlimited said:
No, he said they deserve to be bashed, not that he doesn't enjoy them. One is an opinion, the other is a declaration against other peoples' opinions. How you came to the conclusion that my defense of people having an opinion was actually an effort to bash people having an opinion is beyond me. I'm not sure whether you misunderstood his post or are willfully misinterpreting it for the sake of argument, but either way it's abundantly clear that trying to have a conversation with you is going to be futile. |
Wow, nice attempt at deflection. Let's review the sequence of comments, shall we?
He said: No, we should be bashing Heavy Rain and Beyond as much as we do Ryse. ;)
You said: Fuck you, diversity!
He said: No, fuck you games trying to be movies. ;)
Now, the first thing to observe is the presence of the smilies. Smilies pretty much universally indicate an element of tongue-in-cheekiness. Of course, it's the content, not the smiley itself, that tells us in what way it's tongue-in-cheek. Much as how I used the rhetorical technique of mirroring your argument as a way to mock you, so too was he using a rhetorical technique. In the first instance, it was exaggeration for effect. In the second, he used the same technique I did - mirroring.
As such, I would assert that, if anybody "misunderstood his post" or "[is] willfully misinterpreting it", it's you. But thanks for making a broad and sweeping attack on me over a single observation. For you see, I used a rhetorical technique. So did curl. You used ad hominem. I recommend that you read back over everything and try viewing it from a perspective other than your own; it might be elucidating.
