|
>>
|
No. 11110
[Edit]
>>11108
>it even says in that post 'average enthusiast'.
Which directly contradicts what you said in the very same post:
>No, I was using the average.
See, I can make cute semantics arguments too. Again, the point stands that saying any "enthusiast" is on the level of what you initially implied is outright ridiculous. Someone that's uncultured and bases opinions on review scores one way or the other could hardly be called an "enthusiast".
>I wasn't talking about those who blindly accept reviews, I was talking about those who blindly hate reviews.
At this point I have to think you're either trolling or flat out grasping at straws. Regardless of whether you accept a positive review score as a decision to play a game or accept a negative review as a decision to not play one, you're still blindly following reviews- which was your initial argument against gamers, and exactly what I said there (completely basing opinions on reviews). I didn't even say "accept".
>Oh, right, I never lumped anyone here into that group (to begin with)
Is that so?
>I gave definition to that group
Which is:
>People who play games tend to be unintelligent morons.
and
>gaming enthusiast
>made it exist
Weaving a whiny sweeping generalisation of a group does not make it exist in reality.
>personally, into it, you assumed that you were in that group
See above. I don't need to spell everything out for you, do I?
Of course I'm sure you knew all of this already, and you're just nitpicking at semantics because you have no actual substance left to form an argument with. For someone that enjoys groaning about the perceived low intelligence of everyone else, you're doing a very poor job of substantiating your claims or making yourself look like anything other than a pretentious moron yourself.
|