I've overlooked two things in this argument -- a piece of a Wikipedia article that hurt my point slightly but not much, and a part of your post to a different person that did not hurt my point. 

You've completely misread part of that guy's post and used it to make an argument against him that was completely unsupported by what he actually said. 

Also, you've said things like "you only needed to pay the monthly subscription [for FFXI on 360] as has been said plenty of times before. You don't need gold but keep spreading that."  (I don't believe it has been said "plenty of times" in this thread, or to me; and thanks for the accusation that I like to go around spreading lies.)

However, let's not get into this too much.  It's a fairly silly thing to argue about when we could be continuing our earlier discussion instead. 

It's been brought up about the FFXI and MMO's on here over the past few days.
Also the crux of my argument in the misread post was valid. I never called him a biased troll for not mentioning gt in a forza thread the way he's making out. It was far more in depth than that and he's over-simplifying it to suit his argument.

So you were just assuming that everyone on VGChartz reads the same threads you do.  Okay. 

Secondly, I was referring to this:  "The title to the message telling me why you got banned was "been banned for calling nightsurge a douche" now it's because you mentioned a game in another games thread!?! Do you constantly lose grip on reality?"

Considering you were (apparently -- I think) referring to this passage in this post:  "When I told him people get banned for mentioning another game in a specific games thread he basically told me I should have done it anyway to not look so biased", I think it's pretty clear that you either paid only scant attention to the actual content of his post or have serious reading comprehension issues.  Either way the point you made in the passage I quoted (to wit, the question that implied he constantly revises history in his mind to suit his bias, or otherwise has little grasp on reality) was ironically completely destroyed by the reality of what he said. 

I tried to steer this back to the actual discussion, but if you insist on digging yourself in deeper I'm not afraid to hand you a shovel. 

On the other hand...

JEDE3, please tell me you were joking.

That bit I said he actually got banned for was the bit I misread and that's what I owned up to.
How many more times do I have to say that?

I did only skim his message as I think he's a fool and paid the price for doing that the one time. What do you want blood?

The bit "Either way the point you made in the passage I quoted (to wit, the question that implied he constantly revisies history in his mind to suit his bias, or otherwise has little grasp on reality)"

I was referring to a couple of occasions he's done that including the PM's when he claimed he meant gt and forza. You haven't read these yet seem to know the whole background to it all.

Don't you think you should read everything before you make snap judgements based more on your opinion of me than whats been said before you keep that spade and start digging for yourself.
You keep bringing it back to this and I don't see why I should leave this as I was involved and you're going of 1 or 2 lines that someone else said in an attempt to simplify a whole discussion to suit himself.

You wasn't involved and have no idea what was said but keep commenting anyway.

XBL FTW!!!!

... only then you said "Also the crux of my argument in the misread post was valid."  All I wanted to do is point out that no, the argument I was referring to was completely destroyed.  If you also made a separate argument in that post, separate from the one involving the misread passage, it would obviously be just as valid as ever (or just as invalid, as the case may be). 

Actually, surprise surprise, JEDE3 was kind enough to send me a copy of that exchange, and from what I've seen was saying the exact same thing I thought he probably did.  'It's a Forza thread, so I said that Forza (dmg) was unrealistic.  It's not a Forza vs. GT thread, so I didn't mention the fact that GT (dmg) is also unrealistic.'

He was wrong to say that "My point was that both GT5 and F3 aren't realistic."  But otherwise he has very consistently maintained the valid defense that he doesn't need to tack on "... but GT5 has that problem too" any time he criticzes Forza damage physics to avoid being a fanboy, and in fact could conceivably be banned for it.

You obviously don't know as much as you think you do as far as my knowledge of this (albeit I knew nothing until very recently and said so) but keep commenting anyway.

edit:  P.S. 
"I was referring to a couple of occasions he's done that including the PM's when he claimed he meant gt and forza."
Haha, sorry, no.  He's not the one with a history-revision problem from what I've seen. 

You:  "Looks like you're seeing things your way again. The title to the message telling me why you got banned was "been banned for calling nightsurge a douche" now it's because you mentioned a game in another games thread!?! Do you constantly lose grip on reality?
"You criticised the damage graphics in forza then claimed you meant that both Forza and GT aren't realistic. without mentioning GT so I said if that was the point then you should mention GT as well or it looks like you're trolling."

The "losing grip on reality" question/accusation was in a DIFFERENT PARAGRAPH from the Forza/GT thing, [edit:  which] is more closely connected with an accusation of trolling.  If you meant it to apply to the above paragraph as well, well, learn how to write.  In any case, the "banned" quote is CLEARLY closely associated to the "crazy" accusation, which you seem to be now denying -- "The bit [my quote] I was referring to a couple of occasions he's done that including the PM's when he claimed he meant gt and forza."

Going to work now; should be fun seeing the responses when I get back.

I admit I didn't see the "cosmetic" damage option turned on. I wasn't paying attention to the talking. I was looking for game play. But I still stand by it wasn't realistic. Going 60mph straight into a wall would leave you with no front. It looked like the front passenger side just got a little dinged up.

We've gotten really off topic here.

On topic: My point is I just want to start up a game and play. I'm not interested in the social aspect in making friends and PSN does enough for me to play with friends. I don't think the other features justify paying for it.

This does not make me biased or a fanboy like some may suggest and be so quick to jump in a judge like past threads.