dek wrote:
Aestu wrote:
...which would be likely except it's congruent and contemporaneous with a deliberate misrepresentation.
This is a textbook example of the logical fallacy Begging The Question.
You have built an argument on the premise that it is a deliberate misrepresentation, but you have not provided any evidence to support that premise. When challenged, you can only point to the unproven premise as evidence of your argument.
Stupid and wrong
Since it is my CONCLUSION that it is a deliberate misrepresentation, if that were the PREMISE, then what you describe would be "circular logic", not "begging the question". However, that is not the premise, the PREMISES are that there are multiple cases of the facts of pre-LFD LFG being distorted/misrepresented/redacted and that it is unlikely that these congruent and contemporaneous misrepresentations are coincidental.
The SUPPORTING EVIDENCE has already been supplied in the form of direct links to the edit history and GC's post. If you want to educate yourself about the issue then you can go read through mountains of green and blue posts and Activision's PR style in general: doublespeak is a singularly common means of mistruth.
Clear signs your position in an argument is motivated by being small and stupid and butthurt at being small and stupid:
1. You refer to curiously ambiguous and unspecified "experience" in the field (read: no one cares you were a gopher/mail dude in the call center/whatever)
2. You don't analyze the supporting facts and evidence but address the issue in a contrived wannabe debate club manner
3. In pursuing the following two approaches, you commit logical and factual fallacies that make it clear that your putative claim to professional or dialectical expertise is a sham
4. You bear a grudge against the holder of the position and can't seem to agree with this person on anything, so you weigh in to say he's wrong on every issue (and he's often proven right after the fact), suggesting that your perception of "wrongness" is driven by emotion and not logic
5. Your reasons for holding said grudge is nothing that was said or done to you personally, but merely a bunch of vague, undefined emotional miasmas, suggesting the problem - whatever makes you feel compelled to butt heads - is ultimately on your end.
Azelma wrote:
dek wrote:
When challenged, you can only say that everyone else is a moron.
....so in other words, my initial assessment was correct, and you dismissed my opinion not as a "joke" but as a "challenge".
Also you seem to forget that I went into great detail in explaining why you (and Dek, and Akiina) were wrong about a lot of things. So don't say I JUST call you a moron. I'm always very careful to explain why I have that perception. The proof is that said logic is lost on you and you just go right off believing whatever you do without internalizing a word of it.
Amazing how that works, isn't it?
