I'm not claiming anything of the sort, my response to his Other M trolling was from the reposts here, which seemed frequent, excessive and emotional.(1)

How exactly does a Hurricane explain Obama's win?(2)

1. So you read the posts here, but didn't follow him? If you are reading the posts, that's still following him.

Well if you had a favorite pastime basically hosed by people for nearly 20 years, then see a glimmer of hope it would come back, only to see the same problems are there, let's see you be perfectly calm and analytical. I doubt a lot of us could from all the stuff posted on message boards. That includes me and you.

2. How could you read "he didn't have the means to see how the economy was shifting the election in the last days" as "the hurricane chaged the election outcome"?

1. No actually, it'd be following a curated selection of him, which isn't the same thing.  That is, if I was seriously following it even; frankly the only reason I took any note was due to the excess of commentary (both in tone and in volume).  It stuck out, that's all.

Also, don't make assumptions about me.

2. Well, because that's about all you said.  A hurricane and a failure to take note on economic shifts, sorry I didn't realize you meant the two were related.  Probably because logically, they're hard to really relate, at least within context of what actually happened during the 2008 US presidential election.  Calling it a "stretch" would be being kind.

Does Malstrom live in a cave?  Was he not watching any TV the four months preceding the election? McCain's "the fundamentals of the economy are strong" blunder was repeatedly commented on everywhere for nearly a month alone that summer, this wasn't exactly a "last days" shift here...

1. I made this based on the fact that you are also prone to emotional posts, and had even admitted you got emotional and hyperbolic in some posts in the thread about supposed sexism in Other M.

I'm not doing this like it's a mark of shame. As I noted, this is very common, including me.

2. This post has this paragraph:

"“Who are you to say with your infamous post called ‘Toast’?” Good question. All I can say is that I miscalculated how much the market crash affected the electorate. Remember, prior to that election there was a hurricane above my head that put me out of touch, and out of electricity, for almost a month."

I doubt in that kind of situation he'd put finding out about the election over just trying to be safe during that time.

But he doesn't totally put it on that. He gives other reasons here.

BTW, I don't know if I stated this before, but the reason I agree with Malstrom so much is that I empathize with him. I feel mostly the same way about comic books that he does about video games (save for me finding Emma Frost, Jean Grey, and Spider Man got even worse treatment than Samus, as their characters truly were warped out of nowhere). I didn't leave comics. They left me, for getting convoluted and stupid. And I don't just mean going all violent after Watchmen and The Dark Knight Returns (although they didn't truly get over that). Those that did get the point of those series just let it get to their heads. Now comics are their own personal playgrounds, while fans like me just look on in disgust, hoping that someone does to comics what Nintendo did to gaming.

And that does not mean dumbing down in case someone mentions that. They are dumbed down now (before Emma Frost used sex appeal just when she knew it would help her get what she wanted, now she seriously thinks sex appeal just entitles her to everything). I mean going back to what made comics fun.

1. My response to Abbie Hempe's misuse of the sexism label was mainly for effect, that's actually what I said if you read my self commentary.  And my argument there was that misusing sexism in that context (which is what she did, unquestionably) was the larger issue and actually rather significant given there IS rampant unchecked sexism that goes on in the industry, even by games/developers she'd previously extolled herself (Bayonetta).  Sexism is a serious issue, if I were to emotional about something in games, that'd be something worthwhile at least.  Much moreso than just a creator going against my nostalgia. 

2. Emma Frost was totally ruined after Morrison.  They just turned her into Jean Grey 2.0. :(

1. Then also take into account that what he writes is often for effect as well.

2. Not 2.0, more like a warping of of what a bad writer thinks Emma and Jean are like.

1. Can you support that?

2. Agreed.  She's basically awful 90s Jean now, not awesome 80s Claremont Jean, awesome 80s Simonson Jean or awesome 00s Morrison Jean. :/

Fraction's character assassination of Emma Frost (and Kyle/Yost and Brubaker certainly helped) is one of the worst things I've ever seen in the Xbooks.  And I've seen a lot of terrible things come from that franchise...

When I made that post I knew someone was going to get me because of the products doing the same job Of course that explanation wasn't correct so I can't give you a quote for it.

Let me put it this way: The products are not doing the same job. The 3DS was primarily made to play videogames not to watch movies. So the job the 3DS fulfills is still playing games. I stated earlier that the movie player seems to be targeted at distant customers (at least that's the way it looks from what we've seen) and not at people overshot by 3DTV.

I was one of those people who were really on the fence regarding the iPod disrupting Nintendo's handheld market precicely because of this. One product does the job of another one but only as a secondary function (iPod playing games, 3DS playing movies) and both do it in a way that could be described as disruptive.

I've never seen a quote from Christensen that a secondary function of a product that was designed to do a different job disrupted a market it wasn't really in. The 3DS's job is to play games not to watch movies in 3D. If there are indicators that the 3DS could disrupt 3DTV feel free to give me a quote or something. We're all here to learn, I don't mind being proven wrong. If we don't agree I could also shoot a mail to Malstrom.

But I guess you didn't want to tell me it could disrupt 3DTV, you just disliked my (wrong) reasoning, right?

Edit: Ok I just re-read your post and I think I know what you mean now so I'll clarify. My first statement was an answer to his whole post in which he did some mistakes regarding disruption. The second statement was in no way related to the first one. It wasn't meant to be read like "this is not how disruption works because they do not compete over the same audience." I realize it must have sounded weird that way. I just didn't want to discuss that point because I would've had to explain it in so much detail.

I don't see much of even 90s Jean in her (plus 90s Jean had awesome moments, at least before the Age of Apocalypse, so I will not have even that said about her). I see cribbing all the best of Jean for the romantic parts, to "justify" the relationship now. The rest of Emma is a crappy melding of the crib notes versions of both Alexis Carrington from Dynasty and Paris Hilton.

And Malstrom has written he does things for effect. I just don't recall any key words I can search for.

Well, the 90s were when Jean was mainly just attached at the hip to Scott.  She had some nice moments sure, Operation Zero Tolerance being one, but in general she seemed mostly relegated to girlfriend/wife mode status.  Cyclops really seems to bring out the worst in his love interests, the closer they seem to get, the worse they seem to get. :/

I tend to prefer Emma as a pure villain, or at least as a misguided anti-hero without morals.  The current constantly crying, ambitionless, de-aged, "Scott has a plan", girlfriend iteration we're being treated to however is just sad.  There's no spark there, no friction, and what could've been a really interesting and dynamic pairing with her and Scott has been totally wasted.