LogFAQs > #965044170

StealThisSheen posted...
Just, instead of fully admitting it and just moving on, since that's where the actual discussion between the two of us ends, you decided to take it as a personal insult, which lead to this ranting and raving.

nobody is ranting and raving. people with actual thoughts, ideas, and beliefs are capable of typing full paragraphs. I said you "can" argue about it. that doesn't mean you should. do you also argue with people who aren't referring to literal water under a literal bridge when they say "it's water under the bridge"?

Tom Bombadil posted...
I am fine with this whole post but if you look back at your first post in this topic I think you'll find it eliminates a lot of the nuance necessary to convey your position. Yes the I/we thing confused the issue, but I think also responding to the "diversity is *most* important" part rather than the "we want representation" part would've helped.

maybe, maybe not. I am chatting on a message board with casual peers. I'm not writing a dissertation. the reality is that if ANYONE else had made the post that I made, 90% chance that nobody would have cared about the I/We distinction. similarly, if I made a different post,some of the same people still would have found something to nitpick about it. you can literally go on (archive) and find any precursor topic to this one that I have posted in; something where people are arguing about politics, culture, or identity. you could put MONEY on the fact that foolmo, STA, Lasa would be among the people nitpicking and responding with zingers to every thing that I say. and you would most likely come out ahead.

EDIT: I do want to mention in Lasa's defense that he PM'd me to ask something about this, and after we had that discussion I really don't remember him responding to any of my posts after that. so while I did bring him up because he would be contained in the same post history, I don't want to unfairly group him together as someone who is currently still doing this (to my knowledge)

GuessMyUserName posted...
And yes you're more than free to actually tackle the methodology at which point I would ask who is being pedantic and why?

1. the ones who took the survey actually debunked their own methodology. that's why I'm in stunned belief that blizzard would choose to cite this survey.
2. my response was not pedantic at all. it's not like I was criticizing them for giving the wrong title to their survey which poorly represented what it was about. they are making a scientific claim and backing it up with really poorly sourced data. pointing out issues with the methodology of other people's research is not pedantic, it's the foundation of the scientific method.
3. why? the reason I responded is because I hate bad research. and I hate blizzard.