Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (
More info?)
Then post price data between said companies and actually prove me wrong vice
continuing your superfluous rhetoric.
Sorry I don't have the time to keep up with your soliloquies but don't stop
them on account of me. Odds are an ad hominem retort follows without factual
data.
lupi
"Giftzwerg" <giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1cbee4f9d96d792298a264@news-east.giganews.com...
> In article <%b25e.264$BM.124@lakeread05>, lupi@cox.net says...
>
> > > The strawman, of course, is contained in the phrase, "I thought we
were
> > > supposed to support Matrix" due to "what they do for the community."
I
> > > can't think of a single person who's argued that Matrix deserves any
> > > special support (beyond our broad and self-serving desire to see
*every*
> > > wargame designer be generally prosperous) for any reason other than
> > > exchanging money for a game someone wants to try.
>
> > Try reading their forums, particularly those where anyone critiques
anything
> > about them.
>
> <laughter>
>
> Here we have another fallacious construct (though not so formal as the
> previously-cataloged duo...) I call The Handwave. You rhetorically flap
> your hand in the vague direction of "their forums," as though there's a
> steaming pile of fresh and useful and obvious evidence over there, just
> off camera.
>
> Sorry, but if your contention is that someone, somewhere, at some time
> asserted that Matrix was deserving of support for anything beyond the
> purchasing experience, then it's up to you to produce their argument so
> it can be evaluated - starting with an analysis of whether you've even
> characterized it fairly.
>
> > > Begging the question, obviously, is trotted out with the phrase, "and
> > > their higher prices." Not only has it not been even *remotely*
shown -
> > > much less proven - that Matrix has "higher prices" than ... well,
> > > anyone, but the best evidence (Mr. Rutins already posted a
comprehensive
> > > list of Matrix prices) demonstrates clearly that Matrix's prices are
> > > rather *low* when contrasted with other industry standards.
>
> > Guess you have difficulty managing their website and websites such as
> > ebworld?
>
> Is this meant as an argument of some sort?
>
> Because the only reasonable way to demonstrate that Matrix manifests
> "higher prices" is to produce the economic data. My suggestion would be
> simply finding the average price of a Matrix game, and contrast it with
> the average price of, say, an HPS game, or a Shrapnel game, or a
> Battlefront game with an eye to whether there's a statistically-
> significant difference.
>
> The mere fact that you haven't bothered to support this point with any
> numbers admits to two possible conclusions on our part:
>
> (1) You're too lazy to get the data you need, preferring another
> handwave, this time in the direction in the direction of "ebworld."
>
> (2) You've looked at (some of) the data and decided that the last thing
> your "argument" can withstand is a discussion of actual numbers.
>
> Oh, do tell us which is the correct one.
>
> --
> Giftzwerg
> ***
> "The problem with the entire concept of 'international law'
> is that it can ensnare a Tony Blair while never laying a
> finger on a Saddam Hussein."
> - Mark Steyn
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram