Microsoft To Have Dedicated Servers For All Xbox One Multiplayer Games

#71DesperateMonkeyPosted 10/17/2013 5:13:28 PM(edited)
RedZaku posted...
DesperateMonkey posted...

ITT: correcting someone who has a poor grasp of english while insulting u about intelligence based on their own misunderstanding = semantics. Poor english is a common tool for All trolls i see.



First I sincerely doubt I have a poor grasp of English because I pointed out the semantics of your statement does not imply what he thought it did. Slinging an insult my way just because you have a problem with me pointing out your rebuttal will still be nothing but nitpicking semantics, is just juvenile. Even if the quoted sentence semantically doesn't imply what he's claiming clear by the overall tone of your first post you were implying everyone who disagreed with the power of cloud servers was a Sony Troll. That's why I called you out for the reply I knew you'd make.


Wow, you really shouldn't have tried... I guess you went to google to learn what semantics meant and tried to retroactively apply it to the situation.

First of all, its not semantics when someone attacks you based on something you never said and never clearly implied. Saying "look at all you fanboys" does not even have to have relevance to the subject and concern that is "everyone who posts negatively is a fanboy". This is made very abundantly clear by Oanda who claims that posters prior affilliations can be what is used to determine who is a fanboy.

What IS semantics is you guys trying to attack me for something that isn't even the point of my statement (your claim that I am calling every negative poster a fanboy) rather than addressing the fact that actual fanboys like yourself are here to bash the XB1.

Its a hilarious slope of you guys back peddling through bad logic and bad English. Oanda on one hand calls me a fanboy because of my "previous posts" but says that I have nothing to base my arguments from WITHIN this topic even though he finds it legitimate that he does the same thing. Another really stupid poster comes in and completely fails at reading in order to try and defend Oanda's contradiction. Now you try and take a shot at boosting their credibility by saying me defending myself against false accusations = semantics. Semantics is trying to ignore the point of my statement and trying to twist it into something it doesn't say or is even about. How much more would you guys like to continue failing?

Its hilarious because all of you guys are so invested in each other. The Ponies on this board stick together so hard because they constantly rely on each other to validate themselves. I mean, you tried really hard to imitate someone who knows what they are talking about but anyone with even a half decent mastery of English could understand that you guys aren't even arguing about the actual issue.

And I love the use of my name. Only the most desperate posters use my name.
---
GT: ZiiX360 PSN: BoxFighter85
PC: i7 930@4Ghz | EX58 UD5 | GTX 460 SLI | 8GB DDR3 | 500GB Spinpoint | Vertex 2 180 SSD | Cooler Master HAF X | VG236H
#72babamigPosted 10/17/2013 5:51:19 PM
DesperateMonkey posted...
RedZaku posted...
DesperateMonkey posted...

ITT: correcting someone who has a poor grasp of english while insulting u about intelligence based on their own misunderstanding = semantics. Poor english is a common tool for All trolls i see.



First I sincerely doubt I have a poor grasp of English because I pointed out the semantics of your statement does not imply what he thought it did. Slinging an insult my way just because you have a problem with me pointing out your rebuttal will still be nothing but nitpicking semantics, is just juvenile. Even if the quoted sentence semantically doesn't imply what he's claiming clear by the overall tone of your first post you were implying everyone who disagreed with the power of cloud servers was a Sony Troll. That's why I called you out for the reply I knew you'd make.


Wow, you really shouldn't have tried... I guess you went to google to learn what semantics meant and tried to retroactively apply it to the situation.

First of all, its not semantics when someone attacks you based on something you never said and never clearly implied. Saying "look at all you fanboys" does not even have to have relevance to the subject and concern that is "everyone who posts negatively is a fanboy". This is made very abundantly clear by Oanda who claims that posters prior affilliations can be what is used to determine who is a fanboy.

What IS semantics is you guys trying to attack me for something that isn't even the point of my statement (your claim that I am calling every negative poster a fanboy) rather than addressing the fact that actual fanboys like yourself are here to bash the XB1.

Its a hilarious slope of you guys back peddling through bad logic and bad English. Oanda on one hand calls me a fanboy because of my "previous posts" but says that I have nothing to base my arguments from WITHIN this topic even though he finds it legitimate that he does the same thing. Another really stupid poster comes in and completely fails at reading in order to try and defend Oanda's contradiction. Now you try and take a shot at boosting their credibility by saying me defending myself against false accusations = semantics. Semantics is trying to ignore the point of my statement and trying to twist it into something it doesn't say or is even about. How much more would you guys like to continue failing?

Its hilarious because all of you guys are so invested in each other. The Ponies on this board stick together so hard because they constantly rely on each other to validate themselves. I mean, you tried really hard to imitate someone who knows what they are talking about but anyone with even a half decent mastery of English could understand that you guys aren't even arguing about the actual issue.

And I love the use of my name. Only the most desperate posters use my name.

Desperate, as always.
Some things never change :)
#73RedZakuPosted 10/17/2013 9:18:56 PM(edited)
DesperateMonkey posted...
Wow, you really shouldn't have tried... I guess you went to google to learn what semantics meant and tried to retroactively apply it to the situation.


I think you should have Googled what retroactive means.

retˇroˇacˇtive (rtr-ktv)
adj.
Influencing or applying to a period prior to enactment: a retroactive pay increase.

I didn't say you would argue semantics after you started arguing them. I said you would you argue semantics, before you did. I didn't retroactively apply anything. So your argument, 'I'm the one who needs English Lessons,' seems to be even more baseless.

First of all, its not semantics when someone attacks you based on something you never said and never clearly implied.


seˇmanˇtics
noun
1.
the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. There are a number of branches and subbranches of semantics, including formal semantics, which studies the logical aspects of meaning, such as sense, reference, implication, and logical form, lexical semantics, which studies word meanings and word relations, and conceptual semantics, which studies the cognitive structure of meaning.

So no, it really is semantics to argue that. Congratulations that's two words you clearly don't know the meaning of and you're the one who claimed I was bad at English. You're arguing the meaning of your words and tone you're arguing semantics.

Saying "look at all you fanboys" does not even have to have relevance to the subject and concern that is "everyone who posts negatively is a fanboy". This is made very abundantly clear by Oanda who claims that posters prior affilliations can be what is used to determine who is a fanboy.


You can't use someone else's statements as a defense of your own. Just like you can't use someone else's statements as an indictment of another unrelated person. There is no reason, prior to you bringing this up, to assume you shared the same views as Oanda. This argument is also retroactively applying something to a previous statement. You know in contrast to me, who applied the fact you'd argue semantics BEFORE you started arguing semantics.

What IS semantics is you guys trying to attack me for something that isn't even the point of my statement (your claim that I am calling every negative poster a fanboy) rather than addressing the fact that actual fanboys like yourself are here to bash the XB1.


No, see we're both arguing semantics. Semantics is the study and discussion of the meaning of words. You're arguing the meaning of your words is different from the very obvious interpretation your post gives off. If you wanted it come off differently you should have phrased it more clearly. Arguing semantics, and then arguing you're not arguing semantics, when you actually are, just makes you look silly.

Its a hilarious slope of you guys back peddling through bad logic and bad English.


You don't know what semantics are, you don't know what retroactive means, but everyone else is bad at language? The fact I just had to define for you both terms you tossed around like you were a linguistics professor sort of undermines your assessment of others linguistic skills. In fact you're just arguing ad hominem now. You're not refuting anything you're just throwing around insults with the implication those insults will somehow be damaging to our "reputations." Seriously Monkey, just stop now.

So to recap:
You don't know what Semantics are.
You don't know what retroactively means.
Your entire final paragraph is a giant ad hominem.
---
-PSN: SeigZeon
Your logic fails more than the shields of the U. S. S. Enterprise.
#74DesperateMonkeyPosted 10/18/2013 5:52:06 AM(edited)
Actually, you just butchered two definitions by the same "semantics" you are accusing of. It was retroactive, not because of the literal definition that you had to go on google to find. It was retroactive because it made no sense and then you looked it up and tried to apply it in detail after you realized what it meant. That was the CLEAR connotation of my post, which you missed... LOL... Its the same idiocy that Oanda was trying to pull. You guys describe a concept and procede to completely not know how to apply it correctly since the key word was retro-actively APPLY.

Your argument is pathetic anyways because its only actual basis is on your OWN claim that this was the obvious meaning of my post.

1)This was not obvious at all. As demonstrated by iLikeCheese, you guys just clearly have a poor grasp of English and make improper assumptions.
2)The statement you guys are attacking has very little relevance or importance to what is actually being said.

Its hilarious you put this much effort in trying to sound like you know what your talking about when you immediately proceed to contradict yourself...

Its hilarious because now you are going to probably think I am using "semantics" because you missed the word "apply" and without this word, your definition would make sense. Just like how if you cut out what I actually meant previously, iLikeCheese would be right ^^.

Poor ponies... please keep defending each other. There is no better way to destroy your collective credibility.
---
GT: ZiiX360 PSN: BoxFighter85
PC: i7 930@4Ghz | EX58 UD5 | GTX 460 SLI | 8GB DDR3 | 500GB Spinpoint | Vertex 2 180 SSD | Cooler Master HAF X | VG236H
#75MetroidFan9999Posted 10/18/2013 7:16:24 AM
Ahhh more MS spin.

Remedy has already denied this, Penello giving a vague answer to this question is about as spin worthy as one could get. Dude should not be trusted, especially at his LOLworthy spinning of the hardware recently.
---
Xbox One = Xbone = Crossbone = Jolly Roger.
http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/mind_blown.gif
#76RedZakuPosted 10/18/2013 11:12:30 AM
So once again, I'm just bullet pointing the claims of Monkey, because I'm too lazy to bother with this nonsense.

- The Dictionary has improper definitions of Retroactive, and Semantics.
- Following the concepts in the definitions of both terms to the letter is incorrect application of the concepts presented in the definition.
- You are bad at English for using the text book dictionary definition of terms to define your replies.
- More ad hominem attacks against everyone who doesn't agree with you.

Is that everything? I just kind of skimmed so I'm not sure if that's everything but I think I got it all.
---
-PSN: SeigZeon
Your logic fails more than the shields of the U. S. S. Enterprise.