Changes

:::::::Yeah, I read your arguments about what "fully patched" means and dismissed them as utterly ridiculous. How exactly does the fact that some hackers found a new way past Windows security reflect at all on either the term "fully patched" or "Eternal Forces?"  The issues are so completely dissimilar that I find it difficult to believe that even you cannot see it. Windows was fully patched until the hackers worked to find another exploit. So Microsoft will issue a patch for that and the program will once again be fully patched.  That they did not have a patch for this new issue before it happened (that'd be one heck of a trick if they did!) does not mean it wasn't fully patched.  "Fully patched" continues to mean "fully patched." [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:33, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::::Yeah, I read your arguments about what "fully patched" means and dismissed them as utterly ridiculous. How exactly does the fact that some hackers found a new way past Windows security reflect at all on either the term "fully patched" or "Eternal Forces?"  The issues are so completely dissimilar that I find it difficult to believe that even you cannot see it. Windows was fully patched until the hackers worked to find another exploit. So Microsoft will issue a patch for that and the program will once again be fully patched.  That they did not have a patch for this new issue before it happened (that'd be one heck of a trick if they did!) does not mean it wasn't fully patched.  "Fully patched" continues to mean "fully patched." [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:33, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: Yes, and what you're seemingly totally blind to is that those articles are talking about an exploit 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)

:::::::: 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 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)