Changes

:::::::: Yes, and what you're seemingly totally blind to is that those articles are talking about an exploit/bug/whatever that was known at the time the article was written, but still using the term 'fully patched' to describe Windows XP/Internet Explorer/whatever other software it was talking about.  Indeed, if you look at some of the hits that I didn't point out, what do you get?  Things like ones talking about World of Warcraft 'fully patched' to version 2.3.  If you read the [http://worldofwarcraft.com/patchnotes/test-realm-patchnotes.html patch notes] for the upcoming 2.4 patch, you see several fixes, and I can tell you some of those are issues that have been known about for a while. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 21:10, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: Yes, and what you're seemingly totally blind to is that those articles are talking about an exploit/bug/whatever that was known at the time the article was written, but still using the term 'fully patched' to describe Windows XP/Internet Explorer/whatever other software it was talking about.  Indeed, if you look at some of the hits that I didn't point out, what do you get?  Things like ones talking about World of Warcraft 'fully patched' to version 2.3.  If you read the [http://worldofwarcraft.com/patchnotes/test-realm-patchnotes.html patch notes] for the upcoming 2.4 patch, you see several fixes, and I can tell you some of those are issues that have been known about for a while. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 21:10, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::Again, that this new exploit came out does not change the fact that the program was fully patched. And this issue is completely unlike "Eternal Forces." There are no hackers working to break into the "Eternal Forces" program. If there was no exploit created for Windows, what then? You wouldn't have a leg to stand on with this argument. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 14:51, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::Again, that this new exploit came out does not change the fact that the program was fully patched. And this issue is completely unlike "Eternal Forces." There are no hackers working to break into the "Eternal Forces" program. If there was no exploit created for Windows, what then? You wouldn't have a leg to stand on with this argument. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 14:51, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: I should also point out that you keep repeating 'fully patched means fully patched', like that actually means something.  Sorry, it doesn't.  If you have fundamentally misunderstood what 'fully patched' actually means, and are therefore trying to apply it incorrectly, then all you're doing is misusing a phrase twice. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 21:41, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: I should also point out that you keep repeating 'fully patched means fully patched', like that actually means something.  Sorry, it doesn't.  If you have fundamentally misunderstood what 'fully patched' actually means, and are therefore trying to apply it incorrectly, then all you're doing is misusing a phrase twice. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 21:41, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::It does mean something despite your desire for it to mean something else or nothing. You are trying to argue that "fully patched" doesn't mean "fully patched," which is nonsensical. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 14:51, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::It does mean something despite your desire for it to mean something else or nothing. You are trying to argue that "fully patched" doesn't mean "fully patched," which is nonsensical. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 14:51, 15 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)

:::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)

::::Quoting you:

::::Quoting you: