This FUCKING Guy

Posted on March 8, 2011

0


Check it out, y’all.  I made it! (Sorta.) (OK, not really.)

oh boy

This is great stuff.  I don’t write long enough posts here?  I would think that is because most of this shit is just so damn embarrassing that there is little that can be said about it, but apparently not!  I mean, this guy does then go on to miss the point entirely of the stuff I do write, and obviously making things longer helps with comprehension.

But here, let me pull some shit here to show what I am talking about.

too stupid to understand why the Indian princess from Custer’s Revenge is controversial 

You see, apparently I was saying I didn’t get why the princess is controversial, whereas what I was actually highlighting here was that the fucking article was claiming the princess was the controversial part, not THE FUCKING RAPE THAT THE GAME WAS ABOUT.  But, apparently I didn’t spell that out enough for this guy.  So there it is.

But then, get this, we get to how this guy found out about this site in the first place:

What prompted our attention was when we received traffic from an unusual site (thanks for both hits by the way). He had posted a link to our article “Xbox Dilemma” saying that it is fanboism, based solely on PS3 pre-release press releases, devoid of thought and grammatically incoherent. This is, or “is is” to use his parlance, hypocrisy considering he is too lazy to even spell check his messy posts. To the article in question, it used the principles of NYU Stern professor Melissa Schilling’s seminal 2003 paper “Technological Leapfrogging”, which analyzes why certain consoles succeed in grabbing market share and others failed, and applied them to the current state of companies looking to the future-gen systems. But it is understandable that a well supported argument looks like fanboism, like science looks like magic, to children and idiots. To support his argument he quotes a “reader” who did not comment on this article… on any of its host pages. That’s like quoting a review of Burlesque to talk about Inception.

In reference to this post here (thanks for blocking the hotlink, by the way.  I’m sure it was such a drain on your bandwidth).  Let’s ignore the criticism of my perfectly correct (if admittedly awkward) grammar in the original post, because criticizing grammar makes people look petty, and when they do it wrong makes them look plain dumb (I am sensing a theme here).  Let’s just see that somehow this guy seems to think that I was accusing them of being PS3 fanboys or some shit.  Here’s a hint to understanding posts (it would’ve helped with the Custer’s Revenge one as well): READ THE FUCKING TITLE.  Think about what you are reading and try to understand it.  And no, citing a paper doesn’t make the original article (clearly based on PR) any more significant or worthy of being written/read.

The best part of all is the end:

not even fully reading the articles you rail against

Ha.  Et tu, Gamer?  Et tu?

I guess he did bust me on Jim Sterling, which would work better if the guy had any idea what he was talking about (he references Destructoid, but seems to have little idea who Sterling is), and if I hadn’t already been busting my own chops on that for a bit.

So, as the upside of all of this (and a letter I will post later), I now have a comments section.  Enjoy?