My methaphor is explained in the pharagraph immediatelly following that first one:
When you’re making a purchasing decision on their store, Steam doesn’t tell you upfront if the game has or not their DRM hence you cannot make an informed decision on that factor: Steam most definitelly do not want potential customers to select games on the basis or absence of DRM.
I hoped this made it obvious that I was making an analogy about the way both things are sold, by, you know, me talking only about the way things are sold in the following paragraph and not at all about other things.
It’s you who chose to treat the thing as a comparison between the details of characteristics I mentioned in passing and did not at all mention further in my explanation.
Your claim that my premise is about the technical difficulty in making one or the other support making them do something they are not officially supported to do is a Strawman.
Step 1 - Put up the strawman by stating that the other person was trying to do something they explicitly said they were not trying to do when they actually explained exactly what they were trying to do:
your metaphor is based on the premise that copy and paste is difficult.
(No. My methaphor is based on how in multiple domains “selling things which can be altered to do something else by those who know how to do such alterations is not the same as selling things for that specific purpose”, as I already explained before and you pointedly ignored. PS: anybody in doubt can just read my other posts here as they’re all consistently about how things are sold, not how things are hacked)
–
Step 2 - Totally trash the very strawman you put up:
You can compare it to something ridiculous, but it doesn’t change that copying and pasting something is something actual children master.
(Absolutely right! I was doing totally wrong that which you claimed I was trying to do. In fact, so totally and completely wrong was the way I was trying to do what you claimed I was trying to do, that intelligent individuals might even suspect I was not in fact trying to do that which you claim, but something else for which what I wrote wasn’t such a mismatched comparison).
–
PS: Loved in this latest post the throwing of vague aspersions about my education level as a counter whilst not in fact addressing my argument. Really shows the strength of your argument and depth of reasoning.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
No Let’s Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates.
(Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources.
If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
My methaphor is explained in the pharagraph immediatelly following that first one:
I hoped this made it obvious that I was making an analogy about the way both things are sold, by, you know, me talking only about the way things are sold in the following paragraph and not at all about other things.
It’s you who chose to treat the thing as a comparison between the details of characteristics I mentioned in passing and did not at all mention further in my explanation.
Your claim that my premise is about the technical difficulty in making one or the other support making them do something they are not officially supported to do is a Strawman.
Me answering the first paragraph you wrote of rambling screed is a ‘strawman’? Who taught you to write?
Strawman recipe
Step 1 - Put up the strawman by stating that the other person was trying to do something they explicitly said they were not trying to do when they actually explained exactly what they were trying to do:
(No. My methaphor is based on how in multiple domains “selling things which can be altered to do something else by those who know how to do such alterations is not the same as selling things for that specific purpose”, as I already explained before and you pointedly ignored. PS: anybody in doubt can just read my other posts here as they’re all consistently about how things are sold, not how things are hacked)
–
Step 2 - Totally trash the very strawman you put up:
(Absolutely right! I was doing totally wrong that which you claimed I was trying to do. In fact, so totally and completely wrong was the way I was trying to do what you claimed I was trying to do, that intelligent individuals might even suspect I was not in fact trying to do that which you claim, but something else for which what I wrote wasn’t such a mismatched comparison).
–
PS: Loved in this latest post the throwing of vague aspersions about my education level as a counter whilst not in fact addressing my argument. Really shows the strength of your argument and depth of reasoning.