|
Threshhold
If you read my prior posts you will plainly see that I did not take issue solely with a proposed contradiction, it was merely one of two benchmarks of possibility I used within my posts. Perhaps you need it repeating once more, my issue is with the ambiguity surrounding the statement ‘free but commercial’ and it’s corresponding worth.
Along with the secondary point that introducing money into a game does not counteract the imbalance of available time, but it does further destroying game balance.
I’m quite happy with my position and my defense of it, regardless of your juvenile attempt at character assassination. Rather than feeling sullied I’m more than comfortable sitting on the shore watching you drown in the murky waters of your own argumentative ineptitude.
In my posts I’ve attempted to be clear and concise in the portrayal of my thoughts, with concessions made and hat tipping when subsequent responses deserved such graces. This seems to convey a more commendable appearance in my view than the one generated by some of the responses that have been posted. Such responses being little more than piecemeal pot shots and pipe dreams, with one instance being nothing more than unwarranted abuse.
The area of contemplation, which you chose to specifically take issue with, was how they would describe themselves in their corporate documentation, documentation that is subject to legal scrutiny and the necessity of stringent clarity. I did not attempt to make the case that commercial organizations where attempting to pass themselves of as registered charities, merely that they could not. They may well say that they offer free services on their website but this has little to do with how they define their company in their legal documentation.
I then proceeded to postulate that they wouldn’t describe themselves as free but commercial, specifically including the words doubt and possible to HIGHLIGHT that this was an assumption. Obviously this assumption was false, since you pointed out that they do, but I don’t actually recall pointing to it as a statement of truth.
However, this does not add any weight to your argument. It simply points to the fact that other large companies employ the same ambiguity in detailing their services. Referencing such users does not constitute a viable counter-argument, being that they are tenuous in their value, groundless ‘appeals to authority’. It is a form of argumentation that is only marginally more substantial than the straw man form.
Because x is large or successful and x does y then y is justifiable.
If I had attempted to follow the line of reasoning you have invented for me then I may well have been guilty of introducing a secondary straw argument. The only reason you choose to address this mute point is simply because you could provide nothing of further relevance to say on the matter. Aha he used the word charity I can pick up on that and make it the focus of my response. I can develop two straw arguments from that and use them.
Argument – free but commercial is ambiguous and potentially misleading
Piecemeal Rip - He mentioned charity in a sentence.
His argument is now - commercial organizations are claiming to be charitable institutions
Logical retort - Neopets isn’t a charity, it offers free portals to experience its product range and it is commercial
Outcome – his entire argument is false
This is further supported by your second inference
Argument – free but commercial is ambiguous and potentially misleading
Condition X - Some charities partake in transactions of a financial nature
Condition Y - Charities are commercial organisations
Condition Z – There is no distinction between charities and commercial organisations
Outcome – there is no ambiguity because charities and commercial organizations are one in the same
If we are talking straw then your own reasoning in this matter, and in previous matters, contains enough straw to thatch a Devon village, with enough left over to weave the back and seat your own little retirement rocker. To be honest I’m actually quite flattered by all the responses, messages, and attention devoted to a relatively minor observation. I almost feel part of an instrumental being orchestrated from afar. If I was of a more cynical bent I might even give a name to the piece, perhaps something along the lines of ‘The Lackeys of the Logos’.
On a seperate note, while i do not condone the ambiguity of the 'free but commercial' statement' I do think it is more commendable than blatantly hiding references to the commercial aspects of a game - which is certainly the case with Thresholds chosen approach, even the website has little to draw attention to the registration aspect of the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Why not change your name from Aristotle to Protagoras
|