🚀 go-pugleaf

who...@wherever.com wrote:
> 
> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg mlwilliams <mwil...@signal.dera.gov.uk> wrote:
> : There is no point wasting good counter arguments on mindless drivel - I
> : was merely pointing out that I'm qualified to recognise mindless drivel
> : when this particular subject is being addressed.
> 
> ...which in more common terms means that you're narcissistic enough to
> prefer your own, absolutely not backed up opinions on the others', let alone
> the facts, and basing it on your degree on somewhat unrelated field.

How do you know it's a 'somewhat unrelated field' you surely do seem to
know a lot...

> 
> : I suppose you like to hear stats-mumbo jumbo from somebody who's just
> : pulling it out of the air and then waste time setting them right
> 
> Unless you have some better, meaningful, unbiased indicators of PC games'
> popularity to point at, you can keep your laughable philosophies on products'
> superiority based on sales figures to yourself. Let alone those insane cons-
> piracy theories you're hinting at.

I haven't a clue what you're talking about. Are you cutting and pasting
this from a webpage?
I'll tell you what: why don't you just invent some arguments, claim I
made them and then knock them down? Oh my, you've already done that.
Clever boy!

> 
> : and endure the ensuing back and forth as if it were all just a matter of
> : opinion?
> 
> It is. The charts are based on people's *positive* opinions. The fact that
> you can find Battlecruiser 3000 AD v2 on it, which is probably the basis
> on your accusations, means there's a number of people out there who love
> the game, even if there's an equally big or greater number of people who
> might hate it. So take these charts what they are, indications on the posi-
> tive feedback on a game. Not sales charts. Not some sort of average based on
> the opinions of a balanced section of the audience. And for what it's worth,
> I say these charts are accurate and unbiased. 

Yup, it's a chart based on who can be bothered to fix it. I'm glad we
agree.

> Unless you can prove otherwise

I have to *Prove* otherwise now? Gosh & there was me thinking I'd be
allowed to express an opinion. Me thinks the cross-boy doth protest too
much :)

> and only THINK it should be any different given the data and methods des-
> cribed, you can simply PISS OFF and take your Ph.D with you, troll.

Well I can see you know you've lost the argument :) Thanks for showing
everyone else too.


Mark

-- 
Saturnalia
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/5676/sat.html

I'm sorry, I can't argue unless you've paid.