The point of the picture isn't to imply that Leo was saying that the Wii will not outsell the 360 at any point - obviously, this has already happened.
The point of the picture was to illustrate leo's thoughts in that, just like people who were stubbornly expecting Wii sales to flatline just before it actually accomplished anything, he's predicting a massive and inexplicable drop in Wii sales.
The point of the picture is not to show something about what leo thinks the Wii will do relative to the 360 and PS3, but to skewer his notion of what the Wii will do itself. The graph of fantastic sales which suddenly drop off to next to nothing just looks absurd.
I can see how this would be confusing if nobody had seen this picture before, but we've all seen it in other threads. Therefore, not every element of the picture can be assumed to have relevance to this topic.
And leo, you've offered 'reasons', but only profoundly silly ones. To most readers, they serve only to thinly veil nothing more than, as you put it, "Sony fanboy sayz wiiz da losez".
One could likewise claim that people who think the PS3 will hit 14m this year are just crazy. It's obvious that demand will be fully satisfied around 11.5m as everyone realizes that other consoles are better and then its sales will closely track the Dreamcast's.
That's not really a more absurd chain of thought than your reasoning for the Wii's drop in demand. You know that systems in the past have sold more than 40m consoles worldwide (in case you didn't, look up the PS1 and PS2 - both sold much, much more than that) and have sold much faster than the 360 is for much longer than the Wii has. You also know that the speed at which the Wii is selling is record-breaking. You have to show why the Wii is so different from previous systems that demand for it can be satisfied so quickly, and why this will result in its sales dropping much farther than the sales of historical popular systems which stopped selling out. Otherwise, yes, this is little more than "Sony fanboy sayz wiiz da losez".
Edit: Starcraft, while you can just call every disagreement a difference of opinion, this isn't very satisfying. Yes, it would be silly to attack someone for saying that chocolate is better than vanilla. It's understood that there's an implicit 'to me' in there and that 'better' is not meant in an intersubjective or objective sense. At the other end of the spectrum, it makes perfect sense to make fun of someone who thinks that the earth is flat. Our concepts of earth and flatness require that everyone perceives them in roughly the same way.
The difference is that true differences of opinion are supported by different premises. To me, chocolate is better than vanilla because, for me, it's true that it tastes better. However, we believe in a certain amount of objective truth about other claims, such as 'the earth is flat'. For that, the believer isn't actually working from different premises - he has the same perceptions that everyone else does. We attack him because he's not reasoning correctly from the premises available to him.
This is similar. We have the same information that leo-j has, and he's reasoning from that information in a very silly way.
