The EN World kitten
I meant more in general, unless you feel I've misread your posting style (which, I should add, is in no way a slight; rather it was a wry compliment).You have 80 posts in this thread. Which on your last post, is 7% of all posts. Since you started actively commenting in this thread, it's been 11% of all posts.
Admittedly, I have made a lot of posts, for me, in this thread. ..... Nineteen.
EDIT: By the by, is there a feature here to count posts and percentages in a given thread, or did you add those up manually?
Yes, the "evidence to the contrary" was with regard to the idea that 3.5's release schedule was unsustainable, as an unavoidable effect of releasing so much so quickly.I am going to reiterate that you repeatedly state that that the people who argue against you are doing so contrary to the evidence. See, e.g., post #1142, which I quoted (and responded to).
I do, and it's self-evident. Paizo puts out that much that quickly, and it has yet to doom them. That WotC would have needed to change other aspects of how they do business isn't relevant in that regard, because that wasn't put forward (either expressly or by inference, as I saw it) as part of the idea that I'm responding to. A heavy release schedule of high-crunch books is not going to doom a company because of unprofitability; the evidence of a simple look at the #2 TTRPG company tells us that.Yet you don't actually have any evidence.
Again, I don't believe those are relevant to what's a much simpler point than you're making out. 3.5 was not necessarily going to doom WotC due to its release schedule alone. Full stop.You don't have the numbers. You have a conversation at a seminar, and as already discussed, we don't know what the actual numbers are- you have to wait for a book. You don't know the trends. You don't know if the sales of 3.5e were down, or how much. You don't know what WoTC's numbers are.
Now, you can say that point I'm replying to was misunderstood by me, and that's certainly possible, but as I read it that was the idea put forward, and it's one that I not only disagree with, but find evidence to the contrary to.
See above. There is, and it's pretty much impossible to ignore, which is what makes a lot of these replies so odd.My issue is that there is this dance you are doing, where you seem to keep arguing that everyone except you is ignoring "the evidence," yet there are no actual evidence that they are ignoring.
I can indeed, and will.Anyway, I don't enjoy arguing about arguing. You can continue the argument with everyone else in the thread.