Another well-formed analogy, except that it's perhaps a little bit short-sighted.
Actually not at all, and here's why:
Who is to say that the Professor really is making a valid point?
The problem is, the analogy wasn't about whether someone was saying the professor was making a valid point, the analogy was to show that YOU not understanding it is not a valid reason to discredit it.
Perhaps this particular professor is completely wrong... but I cannot discredit him having my only evidence being that I don't understand what he is talking about.
You are doing it again... taknig something I said in a certaint situation and showing how it doesn't work in another.
He said he doesn't know about cars in PGR4 thus my explanation is invalid. All I am saying is that that logic doesn't hold... perhaps I am wrong, perhaps my statement is flawed... but just becuase he doesn't know the quality of the cars in PGR4 is not enough reason to come to that conclusion like he did.
Full stop. No more. That's what happened and that's as far as the analogy stretches.
It is, when the standards and premiums actually constitute parts of the scope.
You have very odd logic... because the standards are part of the scope, we cannot talk about just the standards, we must always talk about the scope entirely?
So you can never talk about a subsystem, only the supersystem?
And we were saying that's not the whole picture, which it seems you knew, so I don't know why it matters so much!
I agree, it's not the whole picture... yet you keep telling me I am wrong becuase my statement doesn't hold true for the whole picture... but I didn't say it about the whole picture. That's what I keep driving home...
The point of a forum is that people can come in and say "but what about this?" and everyone else goes "hmmm... not thought of that." or "yes, we know, but we're limiting our discussion to this, because of this" then of course, the discussion might turn to what the discussion ought to include
That's politics.
Yes the point of a group discussion is that people can come in and join with new thoughts, but it's hindered when people enter midstream, ignore the background to a comment and then take the comment out of context to contiually argue it's flawed.
This is like a group of people talking about the flaws in a rotary engine and half way through a sentance someone jumps in and says "Well the car drives well overall and is very comfortable, you can't say that's a flaw in the engine because the overall car is quite good". To which the guys say "we were only talking about the engine" and then response is "well the engine is part of the whole car so your explanation must be about the whole car".
That's what you guys keep doing... I honestly think you must be trolling me since I can't imagine you can't comprehend that idea...
If you take what I said above, and your own experience with replying to me (combined with your own comment about glossing over long posts) you can easily see how context is missed or misinterpreted. These are the joys of communicating through an emotionless medium, so I don't really know what you should expect, other than to re-state your implied context once in a while.
I am not sure what you are getting at here... I understand the point you are trying to make but I don't see the evidence of it that you suggest is there... I said something, you didn't understand, I clarified it, you tried to tell me it wasn't a legitimate term or it was marketing BS, I quoted multiple non marketing uses by industry familiar individuals and then you went on to say the comment about a certain aspect was invalid because it wasn't also valid about the whole product.
I think what I've highlighted in bold is all you needed to say, really, so the discussion can move on.
Perhaps it was... although it doesn't mean the flaws I pointed out in the logic he put forth anyway weren't valid.
Then again, perhaps it wasn't - see below...
But it is. You say a standard car is not good enough because a garbage game, PGR4,has good looking cars. That does not make sense.
Typing 3 pages does little for credit. One illogical sentiment voids all you've said.
And you keep saying I said things I didn't...
I never said PGR4 was a garbage game... I said it was a game from many generations ago in the lifecycle of the console.
I am saying you can't call something current gen quality when it's not up to par with a similar genre and title on similar hardware from 4 years ago. And do note here I am only talking about the stanard cars models, not the entire game or any other subsets of the game.
The only reason it doesn't make sense is because you keep not actually reading what I say, but rather deciding what I mean and then telling me how I am wrong...
The reason I have to ramble on for pages is because when someone so completely butchers what you said, it's actually a very big mess to untangle and I hope (futily it seems) that being thorough will avoid further missunderstanding.
You make a lot of valid points and you are mostly accurate in your views and posts, but I have no idea where you find the time for it all. I don't have time, or energy, to read all your super long posts, let alone write them. Still, hey, keep up the fight, whatever that may be. Problem is: it will not change GT5 one bit...
