Video Asylum

Posted by Jazz Inmate (R) on August 26, 2007 at 08:38:44

In Reply to: RE: Jazz, you're just embarrassing yourself posted by racerguy on August 25, 2007 at 09:12:03

>> >>This harkens back to the days when SACD adopters were ridiculed for what amounts to chosing the better format.<<
Really? Show me where I've done that. <<

Cut the crap. You've repeatedly attacked me for being "emotionally invested" in Blu-ray as a pretext to bashing me for what amount to valid observations.

>> I don't really care which format you prefer. <<

You seem to care.

>> Neither format looks better to me at this point. <<

Even though one delivers greater capacity on the order of a dozen gigs? It just boggles the mind that this significant feature doesn't matter to some of you.

>> But you are now attempting to play the martyr by claiming I'm persecuting you for your format choice, which makes you appear even more silly. <<

I'm not playing anything. I'm having a discussion with you in which you've been in attack mode ever since you joined the thread and have labelled me in a hostile, deragotory manner repeatedly, including this latest rant where you've said I'm a "martyr", "foolish" and "silly". You've also labelled me troll and conspiracy theorist.

Hey man, I'm just making observations and sharing my opinion. And now my observation is that you're hostile. I don't see how you can even dispute that. I've been trying to figure out why, but clearly that was the wrong strategy, and at this point I don't care.

>> >>And you are essentially attacking the idea that Microsoft uses predatory strategies. I don't think anyone sane would dispute that.<<
Really? Early yesterday, I posted in this thread, "...There's no doubt that Microsoft has engaged in some overly aggressive business practices..." <<

Yeah, that was after I posted a scathing quote from the DOJ to counter your attacks that I was engaging in conspiracy theories about MS' business practices.

>> So, Jazz - tell me how that statement squares with your claim? <<

It doesn't even begin to make up for your previous posts in which you acted like Microsoft was a fair player in its pursuit of market share.

>> In order for you to be right, I couldn't possibly have said anything like that. Again, you are making yourself look silly. <<

Have a look at the thread yourself, if you're unclear as to what you "possibly have said", it's all above in black and white.

>> Well, since I never said that ANYONE "bought off" Paramount, your claim is again completely off-base. <<

But someone did buy off Paramount. Or are you now going to tell me the New York Times got its facts wrong.

>> Jazz, you are making yourself look foolish. You really ought to stop now before you dig yourself deeper into the hole. <<

Ya know, I don't look foolish, I don't feel foolish, and I haven't said anything foolish. It's just another attack of yours. And now you really don't need to reply because it's just going to be another "who, me?" post in which you claim to not be attacking me while doing exactly that. Not that it particularly bothers me, but you're supposed to have logical, fact-based reasons for going into attack mode that can be clearly articulated. Your reasons (assuming you even have any) aren't.

Edits: 08/26/07