Oh wow, I really riled you up.

Presuming, for the moment, that this laughable, trite and terribly cliched rejoinder is in any way true, how would it be relevant to anything?

Never mind though - that was a rhetorical question. I know, and I suspect you do as well, that it’s not. It’s just a casual, and at this point entirely predictable, bit of disparagement tossed out to give yourself what you erroneously believe to be an edge.

the real problem is the idiots who are paying.

I mean, I think that this is contentious enough to be worth picking apart.

Feel free. I’m more than willing to explain in as much detail as you want exactly why it is that I think that people who pay extra for early access to games are “idiots.”

(Just, by the bye, as I think that people who don’t wear seat belts, tahe the guards off their table saws or don’t get covid vaccines are “idiots.”)

I can’t imagine calling someone an idiot unless I thought they kind of deserved what was coming to them.

Which is exactly what I do in fact think.

It’s this schadenfreude you seem to feel that I take issue with.

I don’t think that word means what you think it means.

I don’t feel any sort of pleasure or sense of fulfillment at their idiocy - I simply note it.

I’m especially curious about that one.

Oh, that would be this, actually:

demonstrates more contempt for one’s fellow man than decreeing that they shouldn’t even be allowed to make their own choices.

You are, for some reason, arguing against the concept of rules. I never asked you to do that.

In response to my statement that:

any consumers who, in such a situation, do not say no to a bad deal have nobody to blame but themselves

you wrote:

Do you suppose that choosing not to wear a seatbelt, a very bad deal, should be left entirely up to individuals, um, “stupid” enough to take it?"

Clearly, with that, you established that the point you wished to dispute was whether or not “choosing… a very bad deal should be left entirely up to individuals.” That was the exact point of contention you stipulated.

So this:

You are, for some reason, arguing against the concept of rules. I never asked you to do that

is blatant bullshit. In point of fact, with the example above, that’s the specific focus you introduced. Curiously, you said nothing at all about the “contentious” phrasing of my original post or my supposed “schadenfreude.” That only came along now, in this desperate bit of backing and filling in which you’re vainly engaged. Rather, your immediate and exclusive focus was on whether or not “choosing… a very bad deal should be left entirely up to individuals.” The clear, and in fact only, alternative to that is that it should not be left up to individuals, so that’s the position you’ve taken, and the position in support of which I’m still waiting for you to provide an argument.

Now - if that’s truly not what you intended to say or imply, that would be another matter. And in fact, in any other situation, I’d be willing to simply grant that that wasn’t your intent and amend my responses accordingly. We could simply cooperate to find the exact point of our disagreement and focus on that (and could both enjoy this exchange much more).

But you blew that chance a long time ago.

So that was in fact the position you took, whether intentionally or not. And I’m still waiting for an argument in support of it.