203
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 219:
Line 219: + +
Talk:Left Behind: Eternal Forces (view source)
Revision as of 14:51, March 16, 2008
, 14:51, March 16, 2008→Reviews
::::::::::No, according to YOUR definition of 'fully patched', at the time the articles were written, the various bits of software they are talking about were NOT 'fully patched', yet the articles still call them 'fully patched'. Face it, Jinx, you are simply wrong. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:57, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::No, according to YOUR definition of 'fully patched', at the time the articles were written, the various bits of software they are talking about were NOT 'fully patched', yet the articles still call them 'fully patched'. Face it, Jinx, you are simply wrong. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:57, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::"My" definition of "fully patched" is taken from basic, straight-forward usage of the English language. Whatever weird definition you are using (in which "fully patched" means "not fully patched") is not going to be understood by the general public. And it was ONE article written RECENTLY (January) which calls the version of "Eternal Forces" which is included with its sequel (and is the same version as the original game with all patches) "fully patched." You're the one who is wrong and I'm tired of your idiotic, senseless arguments. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:42, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::"My" definition of "fully patched" is taken from basic, straight-forward usage of the English language. Whatever weird definition you are using (in which "fully patched" means "not fully patched") is not going to be understood by the general public. And it was ONE article written RECENTLY (January) which calls the version of "Eternal Forces" which is included with its sequel (and is the same version as the original game with all patches) "fully patched." You're the one who is wrong and I'm tired of your idiotic, senseless arguments. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:42, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::::You have provided ONE article where the term 'fully patched' is used in reference to Eternal Forces, as supposed proof that Eternal Forces has no issues remaining with it. To back that up, all you have done is assert that 'fully patched' means that 'there are no issues remaining', and repeated that 'fully patched means fully patched', like it's some kind of mantra. In comparison, I have provided multiple articles where the term 'fully patched' is being used to refer to software that clearly does have issues remaining, and, indeed, asked you to simply do a Google search for the term (and even done one for you, and linked it) and count how many times the term is clearly used in the way you claim. You appear to simply refuse to do that. As for your definition of 'fully patched' being taken from 'basic, straight-forward usage of the English language', well, let's just put it this way - I fail to see how the definition of 'the full range of available patches have been applied' does not. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 10:51, 16 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)