Craig Steele, on 04 May 2014 - 06:09 AM, said:
Sure, okay, go ahead and repost all the quotes all pull them apart. Use some big 5 sylaball words while you do like 'intellectual' cause that will impress me. I got a link to dictionary.com so I can look up the words.
Really? So now you move to attacking my vocabulary? How about you just stick to the discussion rather than my personal attributes? Or is sticking to the argument as opposed to attacking the person behind it too difficult?
Quote
The most relevant post for summary purposes is the one is under #3 in post 470, thats the actual point I was making. Post 474 #4 is another summary point.
Awesome, at least you don't make me dredge through everything.
Craig Steele, on 04 May 2014 - 12:23 AM, said:
(3) Sure, but my point is that people are seem quick to criticise and dwell on the overly negative side of things. This MW franchise was dead, has been for some time but along comes MW:O and they put their time and money into getting the IP and a starting base. Only after all that does the opportunity come for investors and finally Founders. Criticise for them for what they do wrong sure, but at least acknowledge the good things they have done as you do.
The simple fact is that no product, not a single one, has 100% market penetration. Some people are always going to be left behind in their wants vs the commercial reality. If people think the people left behind are an opportunity that is big enough, they can certainly try fill it themselves. But if they are consumers, their decision is to buy or not. That's it. Feedback is great, but just because 100 customers say they want X, doesn't mean it is feasible or even commercial no matter how good an idea it might be.
Nightfire, on 04 May 2014 - 02:11 AM, said:
- I wasn't quick to criticise. In fact I'd probably have been called a PGI White Knight in the past. This journey has been a slow transition, not an overnight change. Granted, you point to "people" but I am included in that set.
- MW was indeed dead. I have expressed my gratitude that someone revived it in the past. Thankyou PGI and Tinker and Smith.
- Yeah, we've been into the financials of PGI before. They also put a good deal of Founders and Canadian Government funds into starting MWO.
- I've acknowledged the good PGI have done in the past. The problem was that praise was also in the past. If they do something good now, I'll praise them for that too.
Craig Steele, on 04 May 2014 - 01:29 AM, said:
(4) Just because I call out bad deductions as bad deductions or alarmist garbage as alarmist garbage, that doesn't mean I am not on your "side". I'd prefer a conversation was balanced and not hate and venom that serves no purpose.
Not addressed to me but I'll respond:
I am not spewing venom against you, I have attacked your arguments at every turn and not addressed you or your attributes personally once. I'll happily say that if you want to call angry dialogue venom then you are out of luck, there are many here who feel entitled to their anger and anger is not, in and of itself, wrong or unproductive. Am I angry that PGI made some decisions I think were asinine, oh yes! Being angry does not mean I am blind to reasoning or rational discourse however.
Quote
You will see I am not looking for any moral superiority nor do I need any, I am just calling out cynacism as cynacism and trying to get people to be more even in their debate. It's not emotional to me at all cause its ummm, not my debate you see. But you keep on attributing my stance to me and then arguing it, (wait, WHAT?? Does that sound like a Strawman argument?).
- What, this was all to point out I was angry and cynical? You should have come right out and said that since I have admitted this right from the start! I could have saved you a lot of effort! Heck, I'll even admit to being somewhat bitter about it. What I am not is irrational nor have I taken leave of my perspective.
- This not being your debate does not divorce you from emotional responses. "Ram down my throat" and "Diatribe" are emotionally charged words selected to elicit an emotional response rather than put forward an intellectual position. Evidence is more convincing that emotive arguments.
- Please show WHERE I have attributed a stance to you where you have not first put it into the discourse? I work from your quotes if you hadn't noticed? Addressing the points in each quote, one by one! So please, where have I argued a point as if it was yours that you have not put forward?
Quote
For your clarity, I don't begrudge Founders feeling jaded, I begrudge the cesspit of venom and bile that infests forums lately and stifles constructive discussion. But by all means, you keep it contributing to it if you like. It's all free speech after all and you paid your Founders money.
Just because you don't agree with a position and just because there is an emotion involved you, to my mind (note, I'm not attributing this to you, it is
my impression), have difficulty seeing expressed doesn't make the position wrong. Everyone has a right to how they feel and the opinions they hold. What I, personally, take issue with is when people take the liberty to speak for other people without leave or attack the person rather than the argument. They are intellectually cowardly tactics.
Quote
A wiser man than me put this down once, I'll leave it for you to review (again)
"no it's just another example of
"I really have no rational reason or argument against anything they've said so I'll resort to attacking them to try and distract from their ideas and maybe even get them baited into attacking me so I can either derail the thread or get them moderated""
They're good words. If you're going to address me then address my arguments. Not my vocabulary, not my emotions and not what I didn't say.
"I am so looking forward to more amateur phsychology in your response. I love it when people try and conduct diagnosis over Forums. It's always a hoot."
Again, I'm not attacking you and I'm not going to be baited into it. Your arguments are all I need to be shown the light.
6
