- Pronoun
- he/him
I am a little confused as to why you replied to me out of order, but okay.
The implication in my first post was that perhaps this could be corrected. I could have been more explicit, yes; my apologies.
I would like to know where I am being hostile. All I am doing is trying to point out an inconsistency in your original post which you refuse to acknowledge. I was only trying to invoke an argument in the sense that I was trying to talk about this issue.
ETA: I expected you to be rational and correct a small error.
Yes, but only because I wanted to make a point.
Death panels were a blatant fabrication by a desperate party perpetuated by misrepresentation of data. That was my point. As to my following US politics, I am willing to bet I am a lot more informed than you are. Who do you think will win the NJ and VA governor races?
You are once again obfuscating my point by referring to the content. Whether the matter is the existence of death panels or the policies of Nintendo is irrelevant. The misrepresentation in the case of death panels is analogous to the misrepresentation of Nintendo as more "villainous" than they actually are in your post. Yes, the topics are nowhere near the same level of importance, but that doesn't matter.
Of course it would. Unfortunately people rarely make sense. I said previously that I could easily see someone ignoring the article and reading instead your comments (which, by saying "Let's look at what's wrong with this picture", do imply that you will summarise the situation).
Of course you are independent, but it is still your responsibility to make sure your interpretation of the article matches the facts contained therein.
Of course I understand this. I never contradicted you on this point; only on the point that your statement (not necessarily your intent) implied that all non-homebrew users would be affected and would have to pay.
You have entirely misunderstood me. My entire argument is about you misrepresenting an official source. All it takes is one error in transmitting information for it to be corrupted, after all.
I understand. Once again, I must point out that I never contradicted you on this point: what I am saying is that the way you presented the facts ("non-homebrew users will have to pay for repairs") is not the way the article presented the facts ("people whose warranty has run out will have to pay for repairs"). Thus, assuming that your statement is accurate, these two groups must be the same! I am sure there is a lot of overlap, yes, but your statement suggests that non-homebrew users whose consoles are still covered by warranty will have to pay as well. This is not true.
I felt it appropriate to pick apart because your commentary misrepresented the article, and I wanted to prevent the spread of false information. This is the entire point of what I am saying. I should think that was obvious.
And no, it isn't irrelevant. You shouldn't assume that your target audience will read the article; as I've said multiple times, the idea of people skipping the article to read your commentary (from which they can determine the content of the article) is feasible. In this eventuality, you must consider what your commentary sounds like without the context of the article, and in this case, your commentary states that non-homebrew users will have to pay for repairs, period.
Additionally, you have to be prepared for people who are left with your commentary in their memory and not the original article, and who will thus spread the misinformation; or people who will copy your commentary, either verbally or in writing, without the article. Both of these cases are not unlikely.
The implication in my first post was that perhaps this could be corrected. I could have been more explicit, yes; my apologies.
I would like to know where I am being hostile. All I am doing is trying to point out an inconsistency in your original post which you refuse to acknowledge. I was only trying to invoke an argument in the sense that I was trying to talk about this issue.
ETA: I expected you to be rational and correct a small error.
Yes, but only because I wanted to make a point.
Death panels were a blatant fabrication by a desperate party perpetuated by misrepresentation of data. That was my point. As to my following US politics, I am willing to bet I am a lot more informed than you are. Who do you think will win the NJ and VA governor races?
You are once again obfuscating my point by referring to the content. Whether the matter is the existence of death panels or the policies of Nintendo is irrelevant. The misrepresentation in the case of death panels is analogous to the misrepresentation of Nintendo as more "villainous" than they actually are in your post. Yes, the topics are nowhere near the same level of importance, but that doesn't matter.
Of course it would. Unfortunately people rarely make sense. I said previously that I could easily see someone ignoring the article and reading instead your comments (which, by saying "Let's look at what's wrong with this picture", do imply that you will summarise the situation).
Of course you are independent, but it is still your responsibility to make sure your interpretation of the article matches the facts contained therein.
Of course I understand this. I never contradicted you on this point; only on the point that your statement (not necessarily your intent) implied that all non-homebrew users would be affected and would have to pay.
You have entirely misunderstood me. My entire argument is about you misrepresenting an official source. All it takes is one error in transmitting information for it to be corrupted, after all.
I understand. Once again, I must point out that I never contradicted you on this point: what I am saying is that the way you presented the facts ("non-homebrew users will have to pay for repairs") is not the way the article presented the facts ("people whose warranty has run out will have to pay for repairs"). Thus, assuming that your statement is accurate, these two groups must be the same! I am sure there is a lot of overlap, yes, but your statement suggests that non-homebrew users whose consoles are still covered by warranty will have to pay as well. This is not true.
I felt it appropriate to pick apart because your commentary misrepresented the article, and I wanted to prevent the spread of false information. This is the entire point of what I am saying. I should think that was obvious.
And no, it isn't irrelevant. You shouldn't assume that your target audience will read the article; as I've said multiple times, the idea of people skipping the article to read your commentary (from which they can determine the content of the article) is feasible. In this eventuality, you must consider what your commentary sounds like without the context of the article, and in this case, your commentary states that non-homebrew users will have to pay for repairs, period.
Additionally, you have to be prepared for people who are left with your commentary in their memory and not the original article, and who will thus spread the misinformation; or people who will copy your commentary, either verbally or in writing, without the article. Both of these cases are not unlikely.
Last edited:
