Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lizard" data-source="post: 4438365" data-attributes="member: 1054">I did.Hmm...with you it's &quot;advice&quot;, with me it's &quot;barking orders&quot;. Mr. Pot? We have a Mr. Kettle on line two for you.I'm pretty sure ENWorld has a kill filter. If you don't like my writing style, it should be trivial for you to avoid it. There's nothing &quot;substantive&quot; in your post to respond to. It consists, pretty much entirely, of &quot;Neener neener, you're wrong -- and, oo look, I just took a five minute course on 'logical falacies'.&quot; It utterly fails to address the actual issue *I* was addressing -- that you cannot leap from &quot;There were layoffs at WOTC&quot; to &quot;Therefore, the 4e launch failed&quot;. I pointed out there are many other possible explanations. Of course that was &quot;speculation&quot;. I was &quot;speculating&quot;. Short of having recordings of the boardroom meetings of whoever made the decisions, the Truth Shall Not Be Known. Now, if you feel some of my speculations are more or less likely than others, feel free to elaborate, but pointing out that speculation is speculation is pretty much the antithesis of &quot;substantive&quot;.Nope, not really.Go bother someone who has a history of deep, meaningful, discourse replete with detailed responses and complex, nuanced, posts. Hong, say.Meanwhile, can we try to keep this topic on the layoffs, and the people affected by them, and less on me? Granted, my ego loves it, but I've been told there are things more important than my ego. I don't believe such drivel, of course, but I am trying to keep an open mind.Oh dear. Barking orders AGAIN, I suppose. It's a habit. Now, where are those puppies? I've got some new boots to try out!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lizard, post: 4438365, member: 1054"] I did. Hmm...with you it's "advice", with me it's "barking orders". Mr. Pot? We have a Mr. Kettle on line two for you. I'm pretty sure ENWorld has a kill filter. If you don't like my writing style, it should be trivial for you to avoid it. There's nothing "substantive" in your post to respond to. It consists, pretty much entirely, of "Neener neener, you're wrong -- and, oo look, I just took a five minute course on 'logical falacies'." It utterly fails to address the actual issue *I* was addressing -- that you cannot leap from "There were layoffs at WOTC" to "Therefore, the 4e launch failed". I pointed out there are many other possible explanations. Of course that was "speculation". I was "speculating". Short of having recordings of the boardroom meetings of whoever made the decisions, the Truth Shall Not Be Known. Now, if you feel some of my speculations are more or less likely than others, feel free to elaborate, but pointing out that speculation is speculation is pretty much the antithesis of "substantive". Nope, not really. Go bother someone who has a history of deep, meaningful, discourse replete with detailed responses and complex, nuanced, posts. Hong, say. Meanwhile, can we try to keep this topic on the layoffs, and the people affected by them, and less on me? Granted, my ego loves it, but I've been told there are things more important than my ego. I don't believe such drivel, of course, but I am trying to keep an open mind. Oh dear. Barking orders AGAIN, I suppose. It's a habit. Now, where are those puppies? I've got some new boots to try out! [/QUOTE]

Verification