Now I'm going to make sure I've got all of this covered:
Of course it's redundant, it's a [tornado fang]ing internet discussion.
I agree.
It's meant to be redundant and meaningless, that's why we're talking here right now.
I agree. However, my willingness to continue, and the points which I do and do not pursue, are up to my on discretion.
That's the entire point of every single debate we've ever had.
Internet debates have no point, it's part of their charm. But with no point, comes no obligation.
I usually take the time to counter your posts fully
I lack the drive to verify that because I don't particularly care how thoroughly you respond to my posts. However, I will say this: if in the event of any "serious business" discussion I feel you have neglected an important point of discussion, I will say so,
and I will reiterate what point I do not feel you have adequately addressed. That happens exceedingly rarely, however, as I have known our discussions to be more casual than, say, me arguing with Marshmallow Man over what's going on in Iris's head during X4. My discussions with you are generally more expression than they are argument (that is "series of points" argument, not "contradiction" argument, which we do plenty of).
and leave it for another time when I don't feel like it at the moment
That's the glory of message boards, as opposed to chats. Pretty obvious stuff, I think.
but at least say you're not going through my entire post instead of just replying to what you got answers for, because that just seems that you're leading the argument to where you want it to go and avoiding the issues you don't want to see discussed.
That's what dissected quote tags are for, Batty. You know exactly what I'm responding to. I might neglect that if it's a recurring point in your post (hence no one line is appropriate), but if you pay attention to context, I don't think it's too hard to figure out.
Now is this honestly what you want me to do every time I talk to you? I am "going through" your entire post in that I am reading all of it. What I see fit to comment on is my own business. If I agree, but have nothing meaningful to add, or if I disagree, but see no means to contest that I have not already previously brought up, then there's no point. And while I'm happy to waste time, I do so at my own discretion.
Further, you've made this same complaint repeatedly and, now that I'm actually bothering to double-check, I'm not following you. WHAT EXACTLY of
this post did I not respond to? In the segment of your post which was addressed to me, the issues you brought up were:
1. Reviewers referencing Dreamcast games
2. Black Knight level design
3. Secret Rings level design and responsiveness
4. Advance/Rush level design
5. Globalizing journalist comments.
I addressed all of those. For Secret Rings I neglected to comment on responsiveness because I felt no need to contest it (I agree with that comment, and it's irrelevant to whatever argument you're making; if anything it favors me as my point is journalist overestimate Secret Rings and underestimate Black Knight). For Advance/Rush, I focused on Rush, because they are more recent, and therefore, more relevant as to Dimps' track record. They're also more straightforward; the Advance games have quite a few odds and ends in gameplay that could be dissected.
A word to the wise: Nobody cares when your argument degrades into criticizing your opponent's arguing tactics. It's boring. If you are not satisfied with my comments, you are under no obligation to respond. And vice-versa.
Show Posts
