@jiyong

Quote:

But with comments like this from Lou, that's where I draw the line: Quote: Do let me how you die. The world waits with bated breath. Perhaps it was hypocrite of me to click on the Report button and still answer his post, but I just had too much adrenaline pumping around.

Oops, somehow I forgot the word "know" in there between "me" and "how" in my annoyed & hasty reply.

But anyway, sometimes I think you misread alot of what people type because of the way you reply and mis-interpret what was written. I know English isn't your native language, but is it even Nordic-based at all? Your screen name suggests Asian. I would believe some Asian language is your native language because of how you interpret some statements.

That's why I say you reply in a manner that twists the original post. I think even BrianK can vouch for that.

Now just understand that some people will not like a product no matter how great YOU think it is. You will not change their mind and if you persist, you only annoy them and aggravate yourself.

@jiyong

Quote:

And as I explained, it wasn't the post itself, it was your accusation of misquoting, that in my opinion was just a childish response when I caught you doing it.

I agree my response to your accusation of a supposed misquoting could have pointed out in a more friendly way. I should have said that in order to misquote one has to at least first quote something. I'll try to be better then give someone a taste of their own poor arguement method. Sarcasm doesn't translate well in printed word and I do typically off set w/ emoticons so the readers can tell when that's the case, I failed to do that this time.

Quote:

And if it is just "an inanimate emotionless object", why did you so furiously counter my response?

I think if you read my first response #850 you will see a straight forward attempt at an explaination it was rational it lacked any emotion and especially was not furious.

Quote:

And in my book "buying into something" is not falsified with claims you haven't seen them talking negatively about it and did nothing to prevent it from running on their systems.

Let's go back to you direct quote from #849. Because it seems you might be interjecting your own mistatement. This is your response to my #847 Quote:

Or is it because it runs on multiple platforms that he doesn't want to support it?

We have 2 options to determine how Microsoft doesn't want the software. Explicit and Implicit.

EXPLICIT: This is where Microsoft & F@H would talk to each other and Microsoft would tell F@H to bugger off. There are 2 companies here and either can approach each other and request to talk and port. At the time you didn't display any evidence that Microsoft contacted F@H nor that F@H had contacted Microsoft. You didn't display any evidence that Microsof told F@H no thanks. Thus, in response to your pointed question the answer is false. In this aspect you have no evidence to either party saying no, nor did you have evidence that either party talked.

IMPLICIT: Microsoft controls their OSes. If they don't want something to occur it's not going to occur. You gave an example of all viruses and it's clear Microsoft doesn't want viruses as it actively works to protect their OS. Now many hate Microsoft due to viruses and how the poor design gives indirect ability for viruses to occur and thus lay blame on Microsoft. Now from that same aspect Microsoft didn't prevent F@H on it's OSes and has thus given tacit approval to it's execution. From this aspect there is uncommunicated indirect support of F@H and again the answer to your question is false.

Later we go to find out that you really didn't care about a rational discussion, as I purposed in #850, as you later admit in #870 that your post #849 in response to my posting in #847 was just a cheap shot. At this point I see your actions in #849 as trolling and you didn't want the rationality provided in #850 and clearly used no RAZZ as I did in #847 showing others I was interjecting humor into the conservation.

If you want the real reason why F@H is not on the 360 read the link Minator pointed this out in post #874. This article points out your cheap shot question is false and it's F@H fault because they knew the Cell would give them a better return on their investment.

@BrianK

Quote:

I agree my response to your accusation of a supposed misquoting could have pointed out in a more friendly way. I should have said that in order to misquote one has to at least first quote something. I'll try to be better then give someone a taste of their own poor arguement method.

OK, technically it wasn't misquoting, but you did put words into my mouth. Still, when I reread everything, I don't see any indication your response was about this technicality. And I wasn't concerned if your tone was friendly enough, I was surprised you tried to return the favor where you had nothing to return.

This is the line where I said you shouldn't misquote me: Quote:

Look your statement was that Microsoft didn't want Folding@Home on their systems

Here you are obviously putting words into my mouth.

You want to return the favor by saying this: Quote:

While as you claim Microsoft didn't actively support F@H I never made that claim - as you say don't misquote me.

Now how should I read this line? Because the two parts are connected by a dash, AFAIK it means they go together.

You could argue the part after the dash refers to the next line: Quote:

I never gave Microsoft credit for supporting that was simply your misread.

It would make more sense there, but I would say what you write in that last line is wrong. So either way it doesn't work.

Remember this conversation?

Me: Quote:

Windows isn't supporting Folding, it simply is a host, just as a public road is a host for a car. Now you are giving way too much credit to Windows.

You: Quote:

Nope actually I'm not, you're just reading in more meaning then there actually is.

For me this was the point where I thought we were not discussing passive "support" and where you did try to give credit to Windows.

So you decide you want to return the favor again, because I said one of your lines didn't make any sense.

You said: Quote:

Microsoft never took any direct action to prevent F@H from working so don't seem to care if F@H works on their systems and other systems too.

Look especially at the last part of that sentence.

I reply: Quote:

So now you admit they didn't buy into it?

You: Quote:

This sentence construct is confusing at best. I have not said Microsoft bought into it so there is no admissions and no now?

What is so unclear about that? When you write they don't seem to care, for me that is equal to that they didn't buy into it.

And have you never heard when someone made a remark, the other would say: So now you admit...
Even when the words after the ... would not be the same words as in the original remark?

Now is this because I'm not a native English speaker, or is this just your childish behaviour?

You also claim I didn't care about a rational discussion. This isn't true either. I didn't mind discussing it, I'm just fed up with this childish behaviour. Things didn't escalate until you started to put words into my mouth. Before that I would say the discussion was still civil.

The way I see it, is that you were so busy trying to win the discussion, you only focused on small parts of my posts and didn't keep things in context.

You are so furiously chasing the "supporting" issue and seem to ignore the "buying into" part that preceded it. While you did use the whole quote the first time you replied, it didn't look like you addressed the "buying into". I tried to point this out to you multiple times, but it seems you just ignored it. Even now with your last response.

@Lou

It's not the fact that you forgot a word, it's what you meant.
Don't you think you need to apologize for what you meant?

It's not that I want to convert people into Sony fanboys, it's just that I add things to "negative" posts. For some reason you are furiously fighting those posts.

And I would like to add you still haven't acknowledged that you misquoted me and falsely accused me of misquoting you. Although you could argue that technically it wasn't always about quoting, but I would like to include putting words into someones mouth there.

And I wouldn't blame it on the fact that English isn't my native language.

@jiyong

Quote:

Now how should I read this line? Because the two parts are connected by a dash, AFAIK it means they go together.

This was clearly stated in #882 and I took ownership. There's no need to flog a dead horse.

Quote:

And have you never heard when someone made a remark, the other would say: So now you admit... Even when the words after the ... would not be the same words as in the original remark?

Yes that arguement type is a common tactic of Bill O'Reillies on TV and the shock jocks on the radio..read bottom feeders out for entertainment. It's an attempt to strong arm a discussion by trying to make the other person appear to have switched to your site in it's entiretly by getting them to agree to a subpoint.

Quote:

You also claim I didn't care about a rational discussion. This isn't true either.

If one cares about a rational discussion they don't interject a cheap shot at the beginning of the discussion. You admitted to making your first point as an attempt at a cheap shot. It's incongruent with rational progressive discussions.

Quote:

Things didn't escalate until you started to put words into my mouth.

Yup it's all my fault. I made you react specifically the way you did. I was wondering when my mental mind control would work and the tests have proven to be a success. I then forced you to fight with Lou by using my evil mind control ray.

@jiyong

I will not apologize for my reactions to your antagonization.
You read what people write and take it to a different level. One that suits your agenda.

Atleast MikeB glazed over what he didn't like reading.

jiyong wrote:
Quote:

And I wouldn't blame it on the fact that English isn't my native language.

...and here I was making an excuse for your behavior...

@Lou

Although by now I would expect multiple apologies from you, I will only ask once more for those two specific lines. If you don't see any reason to do so, for those two lines, I just give up on you and continue to antagonize you.

The big difference between you and me is that I come with facts, exact quotes and summaries that are spot on and I don't need to retract or trifle my own statements. On second thought, I have retracted some statements, but fully acknowledged that and once with Trezzer I also apologized. And we were not even at the stage where I had wished him a timely death.

You however have falsely accused me of misquoting, misquoted me and retracted or trifled your own statements. I haven't seen you acknowledge that. You make it worse by telling me the world is waiting with bated breath for my death. Yet you still don't see any reason to apologize?

It's funny how you mention that MikeB glazes over things he didn't like reading, but wasn't that one of the main points some people didn't like about MikeB? How he would go on raving about the PS3 and ignore the remarks that would make the PS3 look bad?

And why are you telling me what I should discuss about the PS3, when you already have your answer ready? You don't even need me to have a discussion with me... But at least you know in that case you are winning the discussion. You have said multiple times my actions resemble insanity. What does this resemble?

And you don't have to come up with excuses for me. I take full responsibility for my statements. When they are wrong, I acknowledge that. But fortunately that is the minority of my statements. Too bad I can't say you take full responsibility for your statements and acknowledge when they are wrong.

Unless you apologize, that is all I will say about this issue. Or you should present something new.

@BrianK

If you at least can acknowledge you put words into my mouth without interjecting a cheap shot, I will let it go.

But I must say you have disappointed me here.

@jiyong

Quote:

If you at least can acknowledge you put words into my mouth

No words were put in your mouth before you go off please read the evidence and I think you will see why.

Here's your quote where you make the claim I misquoted you.
Quote:

And don't misquote me! I never claimed M$ didn't want it on the 360 or on Windows. All I did was wonder why it hasn't happened yet on the 360 and I added some oil to the fire by asking if it would be because it was multi-platform

Here's your original quote that the above was in reference to. Quote:

Isn't it strange how "our" biggest philanthropist Billy Boy hasn't bought into this? Or is it because it runs on multiple platforms that he doesn't want to support it?

I put the section in bold and underline for you to read. You created a loaded question. The question was loaded with the assumption that Microsoft doesn't want F@H on the 360. There are 2 parties here Microsoft who controls the 360 and Stanford who control F@H. Your question was loaded in such a way to blame Microsoft for not wanting to support fold at home F@H.

You also said Quote:

Is it really important if the Folding project contacted M$? Don't turn the tables.

Which shows me that you indeed intended to blame Microsoft for not desiring F@H as you refused to openly talk about what the other party, Stanford, might have played. Your guns were focused on Microsoft.

You openly admitted to blaming Microsoft Quote:

So yes, I put the ball in M$'s court. Sure it was a cheap shot ...

Summary of the reasons:
1) You question was loaded to blame Microsoft.
2) You got furious when I attempted to open the discussion by looking at the roles each party played.
3) Your open admission to blaming Microft.
Those 3 strongly support my reasons why I didn't put words in your mouth. So, no sorry to disagree with you but I neither misquoted you nor did I put any words in your mouth.


Had you said something such as...
Isn't it strange how "our" biggest philanthropist Billy Boy hasn't bought into this? For what reasons does F@H not work on the 360? OR Is it Microsoft's or Stanford's fault that F@H doesn't run on the 360?

Either of the last 2 questions approached the issue in a way that's not loaded with blame . Either opens up the topic for us readers to look at determining if there was a relationship and what roles either parties had played. Neither is what you did you placed blame through use of a loaded questioning style.

Last edited by BrianK on 08-May-2007 at 06:03 AM.

@jiyong

Once again you repeat yourself expecting different results.

You seem to have had issues with atleast 3 of us. Does that tell you something about yourself?

I've explained how people make statements and you read into things differently than what is stated. Quoting is useless in this case because even BrianK is pointing it out to you and you are still on another planet.

You also can't make an apology without making another coy remark. There is no need to apologize to you because nothing has changed. Either way, I don't apologize for re-actions, only original actions. You initally attacked my posts about Sony, a faceless corporation. Then I re-acted to you. If anything, I owe Sony an apology, but in reality I don't, get over it.

@all

Ok, either take it to PM or get back on topic if that's even possible, seems none of you can come to an agreement on whatever you are arguing about anyway, but it doesn't seem it is about PS3 vs Xbox comparisons..

Otherwise, this thread will be locked.

_________________
~
Everything you say will be misquoted and used against you..
~

@Seer

The thread should be locked. Just saying..

Last edited by KrasH on 08-May-2007 at 09:53 PM.

_________________
Amiga 4000 CSPPC [retired]
Intel i7 3930K @ 4.3Ghz / Corsair H100 / Asus Rampage IV Extreme / 16 GB / 2 x 240GB Corsair Force GT SSD / 2 x EVGA 2GB 680GTX SC Sig / 3 x Benq XL2420T
27" iMac / i7 @ 3.4 / 680mx / 3TB Fusion / 32GB RAM

From Namco Bandai's fiscal year report ending March 31:
Quote:

Namco Bandai forecast slower profit growth for the current year due to the PlayStation 3's weaker-than-anticipated entry into the market. It projected a 9.3% increase in net profit to 26.5 billion yen ($221 million), a 6.6% rise in operating income to 45 billion yen ($375.1 million) and 4.5% sales growth to 480 billion yen ($4 billion). “PS3 did not make a good start, which will make the transition from the old game console to the next generation system more prolonged than we had earlier thought,” said Namco Bandai president Takeo Takasu (pictured) during a news conference. “This will keep a lid on sales of our video games in the first half, although we believe that sales of PS3 will increase in the second half (to March 2008),” Takasu said. Namco Bandai said it was disappointed by sales of PS3 exclusive game Gundam Muso which shifted only 300,000 units, falling short of the firm's initial half million estimate. Over the coming fiscal year Namco Bandai plans to release 23 titles for Sony’s PS3, 24 games for Microsoft's Xbox 360 and 37 titles for Nintendo’s Wii console.

Now developers are waking up and smelling the coffee. More resources are pointing towards the Wii.

Last week's software sales for Japan are interesting... From www.gamesindustry.biz :
Quote:

Nintendo has flooded the Japanese charts, with the top sixteen best-selling games all exclusive to the Wii or DS. Square Enix's Final Fantasy XII: Revenent Wings is at the top of the charts with over 274,000 copies sold, followed by new entry Momotarou Dentetsu which makes its charts debut by selling 79,000 units. There are five Wii titles in the top ten, with new entries from Big Brain Academy: Wii Degree at number five (42,259 units sold) and Namco Bandai's One Piece: Unlimited Adventure at number seven (40,003 units sold). The most successful PSP title in the Japanese top thirty is Final Fantasy: Anniversary Edition at number seventeen. There are no PlayStation 3 games in the top thirty. Microsoft's Xbox 360 has two titles in the top thirty – Test Drive Unlimited at number 24 and Rainbow Six: Vegas at 27.

With no top 30 sales for the PS3 and 2 top 30 games for the Xbox 360...it's just a matter of time before steady weekly 360 hardware sales outpace declining weekly PS3 hardware sales...something I mentioned a couple of weeks ago... Looking forward to seeing hardware numbers soon once Golden Week is over and the media services return to normal in Japan...

Last edited by Lou on 09-May-2007 at 12:21 PM.

@Lou

I'll see if I can find the article, I think either Fortune or Forbes, the author's prediction on the final outcome of the 7th gen consoles is...
37% Wii
33% PS3
30% 360

If this comes to pass it would indeed be good news for Nintendo & Microsoft and bad for Sony. As both Nintendo and Microsoft would have gained marketshare over the prior generation consoles at the expense of Sony. 33% isn't bad but it's a definite huge slide from the market the PS2 enjoys. There definitely has to be more multi-platform titles a company will need to do that to ensure the marketsize is available to them to recoup their expenses, especially now w/ the extra development time due to the complexities of multithreaded systems.

@BrianK

It's too soon to have "final predictions", however mine is:

Wii 60
360 40
PS3 30

...yes, it adds up to 130, but that takes into account multiple console owners...
...actually, at this point, I may be being too generous towards the PS3...

PS3... Not really HDMI 1.3

DTS-HD Master Audio cannot be decoded by the PS3 instead DTS is used.
Dolby TrueHD is decoded by the PS3 and converted to PCM so no bit streaming lossless audio. No TrueHD gets out of the P3 so no using AV receiver integrated decoders.

The PS3 supporters are getting sound of HDMI 1.2 with the possibility of HDMI 1.3 Deep Color is supported. But, of course, Deep Color only works with content and TVs that support it. There are perhaps a handful of TVs that can support Deep Color, I don't know of any with 1440p. There's nearly no Blu-Rays w/ Deep Color and no games with Deep Color.

Of course there's still the SACD issue on the PS3 where the output isn't the full SACD stream either.

Sony mismarketing? Maybe not but definitely less then clear marketing.

@Lou

Quote:

declining weekly PS3 hardware sales...something I mentioned a couple of weeks ago... Looking forward to seeing hardware numbers soon once Golden Week is over and the media services return to normal in Japan...

According to vgcharts Japan PS3 hardware sales:

Week ending 29th of April: 12,886 (+11%) 890,408
Week ending 6th of May: 14,819 (+15%) 905,227

@BrianK

Apparently this was known about before it launched.

Anyway, it'll make no difference whatsoever, it's a digital conversion form one loss-less format to another.

_________________
Whyzzat?

@jiyong
Quote:

According to vgcharts Japan PS3 hardware sales: Week ending 29th of April: 12,886 (+11%) 890,408 Week ending 6th of May: 14,819 (+15%) 905,227

The Wii looks to have increased even more and sells around a 7:1 lead over the PS3 in Japan. 360 is still pathetically behind in sales, in Japan.

Worldwide the Wii is now a mere ~2.5M consoles in sales behind the 360 and catching up. PS3 is ~4M behind the Wii and has lots of potential. My guess is the Wii is likely to catch up to the 360 by end of the year.

PS3 is a bit tricker to predict. March 06 the 360 had sold 3.2M and the PS3 wasn't launched yet. By March 07 the 360 has increased their lead to 6.4M over the PS3, 9.6M 360 vs 3.2M PS3. Certainly Christmas 07 will be a telling time but it's unlikely the PS3 will make up the March 07 lead let alone catch up. (HINT: Sony you need some great exclusives and a price drop both this Christmas.) With these numbers Sony's future likely lies in 2009. That may be bad if Microsoft does a 5 year launch cycle the 3rd Xbox would hit 2010 and advertising in 09 just enough time to keep the PS3 in 3rd place.

Again I still predict the PS3 to come in 2nd but it'll be very close worldwide to the 360.

@minator

Quote:

Anyway, it'll make no difference whatsoever, it's a digital conversion form one loss-less format to another.

Well except to the pocket book. Typically Dolby TrueHD receivers are more expensive then their PCM alternatives. Users thinking it best to upgrade to a Dolby TrueHD so their sound from Blu-Ray is converted on the receiver are wasting cash as they're only getting PCM. For many that upgrade isn't going to do what they thought it would. Definitely something Sony should have been clearer about as the PS3 doesn't output HDMI 1.3 sound just video, and even the video is lackin as no games use 1.3 and few to none movies.