203
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 208:
Line 208: +
Talk:Left Behind: Eternal Forces (view source)
Revision as of 17:29, March 14, 2008
, 17:29, March 14, 2008→Reviews
:::Jinx, for your claim of 'fully patched', see the section immediately above this. 'Fully patched' does not mean what you obviously think it means. As for what I base the idea that not all issues have been addressed, again, that is clearly laid out in the section above. So far, all you have done is assert that you are right and I am wrong, nothing more. Conversely, I am putting what the '''cited references in the article''' say, not my own personal opinion, and I didn't even put those references in, so how you can say that it is ME pushing an agenda, is, quite frankly, a total mystery. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 12:59, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
:::Jinx, for your claim of 'fully patched', see the section immediately above this. 'Fully patched' does not mean what you obviously think it means. As for what I base the idea that not all issues have been addressed, again, that is clearly laid out in the section above. So far, all you have done is assert that you are right and I am wrong, nothing more. Conversely, I am putting what the '''cited references in the article''' say, not my own personal opinion, and I didn't even put those references in, so how you can say that it is ME pushing an agenda, is, quite frankly, a total mystery. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 12:59, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
:::I should also add that your claim of the article 'presenting both sides from the start' is questionable to say the least. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Left_Behind:_Eternal_Forces&direction=next&oldid=393348#Reviews Here] is the relevant section before I started editing it. Now, this seems to imply that all the negative reviews were down to 'religious bias' rather than anything else (even though if you actually read the one [http://www.gamerevolution.com/review/pc/left_behind review] actually quoted there, well, that's the Game Revolution review, which I've talked about above, and one thing I left out is that one of the reasons it actually marks the game down for is that it 'wastes a good premise'. That hardly sounds like 'religious bias' to me). What's the next diff? Me clarifying there was more than religious reasons for criticising the game. The one after that? You reverting my edit, claiming that my point has nothing to do with the subject, even though that section is called 'Reviews', and I'm quoting directly from the same review. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 13:29, 14 March 2008 (EDT)