Lawsuit filed against Nintendo over Switch’s detachable controllers

[Dravenet7]

fatslob-:O said:

Dravenet7 said:

I never said or insinuated you couldn't regurgitate your point. Sometimes you remphasize what your state point. I merely stated that him essentially requesting you either bring up new points or end this convo was not an aggressive post, but one of fatigue. I then proceeded to point out you made the same point 5 times in this thread. Yes, you sprinkled new things in your posts, something I at least brought up with #4. That doesn't change the fact that you made the same point 5 times.

And I'm fully aware not #3 wasn't directed towards him. I state in the beginning of the paragraph (the same one which you bolded a line and accused me of strawman), that MOST were directed towards him. So its clear that you favor selective reading.

Speaking of strawman, I was originally going to ignore your follow-up responses because I soundly made my point, but now you're accusing me of strawman, which I take very seriously. I'm curious how you think what you bolded is a strawman because it makes no sense to claim so.

It most certainly makes sense to claim otherwise ... 

You said, "In other words saying royalties were the only option." but I call bullsh#t on that since since responses #2 & #4 contradict this as I clearly specificed another option ... 

You can play the denial game all you want but see if I'll care after your next response ...  

Oh and I didn't even intend to make the same point 5 times, it's just that this happened ... 

I only used the idea of royalties of making my real points which were #1 (Nintendo REALLY aren't going out of business looking at their cash resserves with respect of paying royalties), #4 (Not sure how you saw this as a repeat since it obviously states Nintendo can't sell the Switch as it is in america without paying royalties) and #5 (Patents are assigned by nation, oh and look I've raised different subjects like how corporations can't seize sold products or how the court system works.) but all of that fell blind ...  

The non crossed out point is the only thing I care about. Like I said in previous post I didn't care about you're other responses because I used evidence of you literally saying what you said to respond to it. But like I said, earlier you read selectively, so you wasted your time attempting to convice me with whatever you wrote. If it correlates to me strawmanning I missed it because you went on a tangent I, now continously, decimated and I frankly couldn't care less about your defense.

 

In regards to the actual strawman claim, again your selective reading shows up again. For it to be a strawman, I would have to say something completely away from what you said, and make a false equivlancy in order to misrepresent your point. There is no false equivlancy. I did not claim that you said royalties were the only option. If I did, I never would have, twice, made a point about #4.  If you look at the previous sentence (I know its hard for you but try), you can see that was my interpretation of what Azuren said. Now it could be wrong in part, but essentially he was tired of the repetitive nature of what you were saying. Which you were being. 

I leave with the idea of looking into the dictionary before you use words you clearly don't know the meaning of.