Jimquisition: Why The PS4 Is Kicking Xbox One's Arse

[Thanatos2k]

[
Low quality games? I don't think you remember how magical any game was back then. Applying today's standards would be nonsense.

I'm not applying today's standards. At the time, the games were much better on The Amiga, Atari ST, hell even Commodore 64 and Apple II.

Wow, you really WILL argue about anything. You're seriously trying to discredit my parent's reasons for purchasing a computer 22 years ago. That's.....pretty pathetic actually.

It's been happening for years. And for some kinds of games, the touch or accelerometer interface is better than traditional controls.

And yet it hasn't resulted in better games overall. Funny how that worked out. An interface that deliberately makes controls slower. Nintendo thought motion controls were better than traditional controls too, and that turned out not to be the case. The Kinect is another sad reminder of this fact.

No you didn't. You only showed that Steam is doing well. Thaty doesn't mean the overall market segment is.

Ah, good. You'll easily be able to produce evidence to the contrary then. Wouldn't want to just spout off and not have any actual reasoning besides your own self certainly.

Spoilers: http://www.webpronews.com/pc-gaming-revenue-to-hit-24-billion-by-2017-2014-01

Notice the only revenue drops are due to the scammy PC games (which sadly make money) moving to mobile. And I'd hardly consider those PC games.

Buy it's not inexplicable. It does't make sense for Microsoft to waste its time and resources on PC gaming.

Valve has shown us otherwise. Valve has shown us Microsoft was wrong to think it was dead.

No I don't. When did I say that?

When did I say you said that?

Also, you're wrong. If PCs are backwards-compatible, then go take a 2014 model PC, and install PC DOS v1.0 on it.

You can emulate it. That's still backwards compatibility. For example, the PS3 has PS1 backward compatibility even though they didn't "install" the PS1 OS on its hardware - they emulate it.

 

[Roxor]

Always good to see a title where the author knows how to spell "arse".

On topic, it's weird to hear about a company doing something right for a change. Really weird. I wonder how long it'll last? Six months if we're lucky?

 

[gridsleep]

Weird...the first time I hit the Comment button it took me to Facebook. And I don't even use that.
Anyway, just wondering, Jim, if you are at all related to George Sanders. Because, especially at the very end of this video, you come across as the spiritual heir to Shere Khan. That's a good thing.

 

[Demonchaser27]

I'm not really a fan of videos/comments that fuel the unnecessary fire for more console wars, but yes I think Microsoft pretty much shot themselves in the foot here. Congrats to Sony and all but I couldn't care less about any of the three here. When they become less restrictive (if ever), more open-platform, and give better deals on their online stores then maybe. I just don't really care as much anymore. It's not to downplay anyone's opinion here I just don't really like any of them right now.

 

[Demonchaser27]

Have you read their press releases during and after E3?Microsoft was dead set on shoving their vision of the 'future' onto everyone whether we liked it or not.

24 hour check in otherwise your XBONE locks down?They were planning to do that.

Locking games onto the console to prevent people from sharing or selling their games and violating the law of First Sale?They were planning on doing that also.

Having the console spy on everyone in the room and collect info to then be sold to the highest bidder?They were also planning to do that.

If Microsoft's idea of the future is to be a bastion of anti consumerism then I'm glad the gaming community is 'clinging to the past' as you put it.When a change is shit and designed to screw over people then it's not needed.

There is only one problem with that assessment. None of the things you attribute to the original intent of the console, was the POINT of having said mechanisms on the console.

- 24 hour check in was to perform updates when you were not using the console
- Digital media belonging to a device or an account made usage history and device transfer a lot easier.(And you are using the idea of First Sale incorrectly)
- User recognition has nothing to do with spying. Just like FB or Google, it was a way of tailoring the experience to the user. yup, you are correct, easily abused, but to say this was their primary goal is preposterous.

Knee jerk reaction and a bunch of whiny journalists looking for a reason to bash a big company(hell it's not like they don't scrutinize Sony) does not actually prove the hysteria. Being anti consumer does not behoove any large company, and more often than not the perception of being such is a projection brought on by people who either do not understand the technology, or who are entrenched in the status quo.

Believe whatever you want.Change for the sake of change is never good especially when it's bad.

Read the news reports from Microsoft before and after the XBONE reveal instead of the PR articles made after the backpedaling.

Whiny journalists and hysteria?Pfft hahahaha!You know..... I'm going to be fair minded and not assume you're one of those people who drunk Microsoft's kool-ade because that statement is plain ridiculus.

Kinect being talored made for the user??Oh please....nobody wanted it and the only reason Microsoft shoved it down everyone's throats is so they can collect personal info for ad companies.

Bottom line is no matter how much you and the other people who were for Microsoft's 'vision of the future' deny it the majority did'nt like what they were seeing.

Nah, look [the hidden eagle] I got you covered. Here's the deal. There is absolutely no reason that Microsoft needed to add any of the restrictions they added in order to have any of the original features they wanted. I don't care what their made-up fantasy bullcrap reasons are. You can still have online trading, sharing, multiplayer, update checks, and any other garbage they wanted to do WITHOUT any of the restrictions they imposed. Not defending WiiU but it updates and sends information without a mandatory online requirement.

There is no reason be it: Piracy, Control, Fear, or any other reason that they "needed" those restrictions. They could have implemented any of those "wonderful" features without them. Microsoft can pout and moan about the "future". Well here Microsoft, go ahead and bring us those awesome things, but without your asinine DRM and restrictions. I mean be honest; is it so freaking hard?

 

[Demonchaser27]

Believe whatever you want.Change for the sake of change is never good especially when it's bad.

Read the news reports from Microsoft before and after the XBONE reveal instead of the PR articles made after the backpedaling.

Whiny journalists and hysteria?Pfft hahahaha!You know..... I'm going to be fair minded and not assume you're one of those people who drunk Microsoft's kool-ade because that statement is plain ridiculus.

Kinect being talored made for the user??Oh please....nobody wanted it and the only reason Microsoft shoved it down everyone's throats is so they can collect personal info for ad companies.

Bottom line is no matter how much you and the other people who were for Microsoft's 'vision of the future' deny it the majority did'nt like what they were seeing.

We live in an age where everyone assumes the worst. That is exactly what happened with XBOX One. And Sony, who is honestly no better in terms of how they treat their consumers did the only thing they could do, nothing. They let speculation run rampant, they quietly adjusted whatever business strategies they had as to not make waves and they let MS have to back off of what would have actually been a positive change.

No one balks at the proprietary nature of cell phones, tablets, TV's, etc. The fact that you are constantly connected for full functionality. That your media is device locked, that your device is in constant connection with its source. People don't think twice about it. And the main reason is that it is unobtrusive. Updates happen behind the scenes, or with a simple click/press. Services adapt to your location and media is available in multiple places. You don't decry updates to the interface, or voice recognition as pointless.

Yet when MS attempted to integrate these systems into the XBOX, all of the sudden they were anti- consumer. A big evil company out to steal your souls.

Yeah, ok...

No one cares that sites like this one get more information from you than kinect ever could. That FB, itunes, google... All take waaaaaay more of your information and make a lot more money off your back than MS could from an XBOX. Sure MS does it too, but again, to claim them some evil entity, seems silly.

I'm not really responding to this to talk against it. I just want to make some points about some of the things here.

We live in an age where everyone assumes the worst. That is exactly what happened with XBOX One. And Sony, who is honestly no better in terms of how they treat their consumers did the only thing they could do, nothing. They let speculation run rampant, they quietly adjusted whatever business strategies they had as to not make waves and they let MS have to back off of what would have actually been a positive change.

The reason everyone assumes the worst is because these companies have slowly taken away features/freedom/backwards compatibility etc. These companies aren't innocent. They painted themselves into this corner. You can only lie, hype, and over-exaggerate so long before people lose trust. Its probably the biggest and most fundamental flaw with advertising and to a greater degree capitalism, a system that is predicated on selfish desire no matter how it is to be obtained.

You're right that none of the consoles are doing really any better than the others. Sales-wise yes, but being good to the consumer, hell no. So my personal point is actually against them all pretty much.

As I've stated in the previous comment about Xbox One, Microsoft didn't have to implement any of its BS in order to apply any of the new features they were going for. Sony didn't really need to add an online fee to be able to play multiplayer. The problem most people have is that they are sick and tired of having to lose things in order to get even an extra grain of salt with these companies. There is absolutely no excuse for it. These are multi-billion dollar companies. They should want for nothing, but they do. That makes them hard to trust.

No one balks at the proprietary nature of cell phones, tablets, TV's, etc. The fact that you are constantly connected for full functionality. That your media is device locked, that your device is in constant connection with its source. People don't think twice about it. And the main reason is that it is unobtrusive. Updates happen behind the scenes, or with a simple click/press. Services adapt to your location and media is available in multiple places. You don't decry updates to the interface, or voice recognition as pointless.

Myself and several that I know on a daily basis get peeved and aggravated with phone, internet, and TV service providers. The problem with these are that unfortunately these have become so heavily integrated into modern life that most people get flabbergasted if you dare to speak out against these behemoths. I'll go on record here saying I think its bull**** that I can't get a decent affordable plan with just unlimited talk minutes and nothing else. No one offers it. It wouldn't be hard to implement nor would it be expensive, but they just don't do it. It still irritates me though.

No one cares that sites like this one get more information from you than kinect ever could. That FB, itunes, google... All take waaaaaay more of your information and make a lot more money off your back than MS could from an XBOX. Sure MS does it too, but again, to claim them some evil entity, seems silly.

To this last one here, once again, I care. Its why I have things "I cannot speak of" on this site and a VPN and the like that warn me if someone or a site is trying to profit/just take my personal information so that my privacy stays private. I can't speak for everyone, but I do care about all of these companies' BS. I don't trust any company I deal with these days as a result. Unfortunately this is a lonely system where these business leaders do what they want and there isn't a whole lot one can do other than complain about it.

 

[theApoc]

Believe whatever you want.Change for the sake of change is never good especially when it's bad.

Read the news reports from Microsoft before and after the XBONE reveal instead of the PR articles made after the backpedaling.

Whiny journalists and hysteria?Pfft hahahaha!You know..... I'm going to be fair minded and not assume you're one of those people who drunk Microsoft's kool-ade because that statement is plain ridiculus.

Kinect being talored made for the user??Oh please....nobody wanted it and the only reason Microsoft shoved it down everyone's throats is so they can collect personal info for ad companies.

Bottom line is no matter how much you and the other people who were for Microsoft's 'vision of the future' deny it the majority did'nt like what they were seeing.

We live in an age where everyone assumes the worst. That is exactly what happened with XBOX One. And Sony, who is honestly no better in terms of how they treat their consumers did the only thing they could do, nothing. They let speculation run rampant, they quietly adjusted whatever business strategies they had as to not make waves and they let MS have to back off of what would have actually been a positive change.

No one balks at the proprietary nature of cell phones, tablets, TV's, etc. The fact that you are constantly connected for full functionality. That your media is device locked, that your device is in constant connection with its source. People don't think twice about it. And the main reason is that it is unobtrusive. Updates happen behind the scenes, or with a simple click/press. Services adapt to your location and media is available in multiple places. You don't decry updates to the interface, or voice recognition as pointless.

Yet when MS attempted to integrate these systems into the XBOX, all of the sudden they were anti- consumer. A big evil company out to steal your souls.

Yeah, ok...

No one cares that sites like this one get more information from you than kinect ever could. That FB, itunes, google... All take waaaaaay more of your information and make a lot more money off your back than MS could from an XBOX. Sure MS does it too, but again, to claim them some evil entity, seems silly.

I'm not really responding to this to talk against it. I just want to make some points about some of the things here.

We live in an age where everyone assumes the worst. That is exactly what happened with XBOX One. And Sony, who is honestly no better in terms of how they treat their consumers did the only thing they could do, nothing. They let speculation run rampant, they quietly adjusted whatever business strategies they had as to not make waves and they let MS have to back off of what would have actually been a positive change.

The reason everyone assumes the worst is because these companies have slowly taken away features/freedom/backwards compatibility etc. These companies aren't innocent. They painted themselves into this corner. You can only lie, hype, and over-exaggerate so long before people lose trust. Its probably the biggest and most fundamental flaw with advertising and to a greater degree capitalism, a system that is predicated on selfish desire no matter how it is to be obtained.

You're right that none of the consoles are doing really any better than the others. Sales-wise yes, but being good to the consumer, hell no. So my personal point is actually against them all pretty much.

As I've stated in the previous comment about Xbox One, Microsoft didn't have to implement any of its BS in order to apply any of the new features they were going for. Sony didn't really need to add an online fee to be able to play multiplayer. The problem most people have is that they are sick and tired of having to lose things in order to get even an extra grain of salt with these companies. There is absolutely no excuse for it. These are multi-billion dollar companies. They should want for nothing, but they do. That makes them hard to trust.

No one balks at the proprietary nature of cell phones, tablets, TV's, etc. The fact that you are constantly connected for full functionality. That your media is device locked, that your device is in constant connection with its source. People don't think twice about it. And the main reason is that it is unobtrusive. Updates happen behind the scenes, or with a simple click/press. Services adapt to your location and media is available in multiple places. You don't decry updates to the interface, or voice recognition as pointless.

Myself and several that I know on a daily basis get peeved and aggravated with phone, internet, and TV service providers. The problem with these are that unfortunately these have become so heavily integrated into modern life that most people get flabbergasted if you dare to speak out against these behemoths. I'll go on record here saying I think its bull**** that I can't get a decent affordable plan with just unlimited talk minutes and nothing else. No one offers it. It wouldn't be hard to implement nor would it be expensive, but they just don't do it. It still irritates me though.

No one cares that sites like this one get more information from you than kinect ever could. That FB, itunes, google... All take waaaaaay more of your information and make a lot more money off your back than MS could from an XBOX. Sure MS does it too, but again, to claim them some evil entity, seems silly.

To this last one here, once again, I care. Its why I have things "I cannot speak of" on this site and a VPN and the like that warn me if someone or a site is trying to profit/just take my personal information so that my privacy stays private. I can't speak for everyone, but I do care about all of these companies' BS. I don't trust any company I deal with these days as a result. Unfortunately this is a lonely system where these business leaders do what they want and there isn't a whole lot one can do other than complain about it.

And I care as well. My initial point in this discussion was not necessarily to defend MS, or any company for that matter, but rather to counter Jim's notion that this was an anti-consumer measure, removed after their fingers were seen in the cookie jar.

There are pro's and con's to all of the inter connectivity, and the only way that any of it "works" is when the secondary effects(DRM, data collection, profiling), goes unnoticed.

Ultimately the ONLY solution that consumers will have to cut out the middle men, and communicate directly with one another making all other digital activity as anonymous as possible.

 

[DragonDai]

To me, and forgive me, but, that sounds like the people who make consoles CHOOSE to make them not backwards compatible ON PURPOSE. As in, they knew the decisions they were making would make the consoles NOT backwards compatible, but they made those decisions anyway.

I very much doubt that they made major system architecture decisions for the purpose of blocking backwards compatibility. That just doesn't make any sense. They likely chose the system architecture they did for price and performance reasons. I think one particular reason for choosing the RISC architectures they did in the last generation was for power efficiency and heat dissipation reasons when building a small enclosure with minimal cooling. Since then, x86 has made big improvements in energy efficiency, hence the switch back to x86 this generation.

Hardware architecture is a major business and engineering decision, one they are stuck with for years. It would be ridiculous to make such a big decision on the basis of something so trivial. If they don't want to support backward-compatibility, there's a much easier and cheaper way to do it - simply by not supporting backward compatibility even if the hardware architecture did remain the same. That doesn't cost anything at all.

That, very simply, means that the people making the consoles decided to not allow backwards compatibility, on purpose. I believe that was the main premise of my last post, but it's pretty irrefutable.

No, it's easily refutable.

You said they didn't make the choice to deny backwards compatibiliity on purpose. But then you go on to say they made the choice to choose hardware they KNEW wouldn't allow backwards compatibility. You are out right contradicting yourself.

Now, I get the little retorical stunt you're trying to pull here. What you mean to say is they didn't pick hardware A BECAUSE it didn't allow backwards compatibility, they picked it for other reasons, and that was an unfortunate side effect.

I posit that it was a side effect they knew about, therefore, by picking hardware A, they picked no backwards compatibility, therefore they did it on purpose. It might not have been their goal, but they knew the outcome.

It wasn't an accident. It wasn't like "There will be backwards compatibility....opps, or not." No they knew from day 1 there wouldn't be backwards compatibility because they knew they couldn't shell out the money needed to make it backwards compatible and have it be price competitive with the PC.

At the end of the day, you can get a console without backwards compatibility for about 100 bucks less than a similarly powerful PC (if you buy PS4, XBONE is same price as similarly powered PC). But the PC comes with backwards compatibility, as well as a slew of other awesome features. PS4 comes with like 2 dozen games, that you have to buy at full price. WEEE!!!

And in 6 months-ish, that 100 dollar price difference will be 0 dollars, and in about 1 year, PS4s will be more expensive than equally powerful PCs. Sorry, but damn...things ain't looking good for the consoles...

 

[DragonDai]

-snip-

So what you're saying is that the people who made the consoles made a choice that made backwards compatibility super impractical at best, and down right impossible at worst? An active decision, which they could have made differently, to allow much easier backwards compatibility?

To me, and forgive me, but, that sounds like the people who make consoles CHOOSE to make them not backwards compatible ON PURPOSE. As in, they knew the decisions they were making would make the consoles NOT backwards compatible, but they made those decisions anyway.

I don't see how that is any sort of "free ride" for consoles, nor do I see how that invalidates the argument, "If the devs of consoles wanted them to be backwards compatible, they would be."

You are correct. While I could argue that it was an "activate" choice to make them incompatible, you have to remember that each generation is between 5 and 7 years apart. They were (and still are) trying to build the best console at the best price. Adding in hardware that the customer can easily buy elsewhere for themselves is just bumping costs.

Also, do you realise that backwards-compatibility was only introduced with the PS2? Every, and I do mean every single console prior to that was standalone. You want to upgrade? That means dumping your current library and building a new one. Yes it's a shitty situation, but it has 30 years of precedence.

So, you want full backwards compatibility? Don't sell your old console. Or, as you have already done, get a PC. They are intrinsically designed to be backwards compatible.

Someone who gets it...

 

[Demonchaser27]

snip

I didn't mean to imply you were defending Microsoft. I apologize if that's what I came across as saying. I just disagree with this "deal with it" notion that most people seem to have when it comes to companies. If we want more business models like Good Old Games which give all the goods with none of the restrictions, we have to fight against models like what Xbox One had and reward those that do it right. This isn't as simple as buy what looks cool. This is about fighting for business models that give the most freedom to both parties.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

You said they didn't make the choice to deny backwards compatibiliity on purpose. But then you go on to say they made the choice to choose hardware they KNEW wouldn't allow backwards compatibility. You are out right contradicting yourself.

No, I'm not. They did not make the hardware choices they did with any purposeful intention regarding backward compatibility.

Now, I get the little retorical stunt you're trying to pull here. What you mean to say is they didn't pick hardware A BECAUSE it didn't allow backwards compatibility, they picked it for other reasons, and that was an unfortunate side effect.

No, it's not a "rhetorical stunt" - it's just how things are.

And how do you know what the engineering teams had to do with any backward compatibility decisions? They were probably simply told "design hardware to meet these specs" and backward-compatibility was simply not part of the design brief.

I posit that it was a side effect they knew about, therefore, by picking hardware A, they picked no backwards compatibility, therefore they did it on purpose. It might not have been their goal, but they knew the outcome.

Now you're the one playing rhetorical tricks. You said they chose lack of backward compatibility ON PURPOSE (your silly all-caps).

It's all very silly, especially as the hardware engineers are not likely to be the ones making decisions about whether the system will support backward compatibility - and even if they did choose backwards-compatible hardware, that doesn't mean the system itself would support backward-compatibility, as that would also have to be supported in software.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

First off, WAY TO GO comparing backwards compatibility to genocide! You are a console champ! WOOT!

What the hell are you talking about? The other poster did not compare backward-compatibility to genocide.

Also, it's nothing like Syria or world hunger, you overly dramatic fanboi.

Wait, s/he's the one who's over dramatic, yet you go around calling people "fanboi" and mistake a simple pragmatic/economic argument for a comparison to genocide? I think I've seen everything now.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

Backwards compatibility does not mean it has to be compatible with everything. 16 bit software is no longer directly compatible with on 64 bit architecture, that is true, but you can still run them through a VM.

So, it's not "intrinsically" backwards compatible then, is it? That was the argument I was responding to, that the "PC" (whatever that means) is somehow inherently backwards compatible.

If you have to use a VM or emulator, it isn't directly backwards-compatible. Emulators can be made for almost any future hardware architectures or Operating Systems, given enough reverse-engineering and software development. So technically, I guess anything can be backwards-compatible.

Additionally, why the hell are you talking about PowerPC CPUs? PowerPCs are completely different from x64 and x86. PowerPC vs x86 and x64 would be about cross-compatibility, not backwards compatibility.

This is why I asked what the definition of "PC" is supposed to be. Macs are PCs, in that they are Personal Computers. Yet they are not compatible with Windows games (well, the hardware is, if it's an Intel Mac with Windows installed on it, but you get my drift).

Similarly there are versions of Windows that were written for PowerPC. And then there are Operating Systems like Linux which will run on an x86, but not run Windows games.

So, what exactly are we talking about when we say "PC"? Do we mean the hardware? Do we mean Windows? Or do we mean some combination of hardware and OS?

 

[Aardvaarkman]

Wow, you really WILL argue about anything. You're seriously trying to discredit my parent's reasons for purchasing a computer 22 years ago. That's.....pretty pathetic actually.

No, I'm not trying to discredit your parent's choice. I'm just saying that it seems far from typical. You say that they bought this computer only for games? Even the staunchest gaming fans back in the day had other reasons for buying computers - such as learning programming or doing homework. And I think that especially applies in the case of parents. Did they really buy that computer for you with the intention that you only play games on it?

Also, yes, I will argue about anything. What's wrong with that? The only way to engage in a fully articulated intellectual life is to be able to discuss and debate anything.

It's been happening for years. And for some kinds of games, the touch or accelerometer interface is better than traditional controls.

And yet it hasn't resulted in better games overall. Funny how that worked out. An interface that deliberately makes controls slower. Nintendo thought motion controls were better than traditional controls too, and that turned out not to be the case. The Kinect is another sad reminder of this fact.

I never said it resulted in "better games" - I was just refuting your claim that it had never resulted in a console or PC-quality game. That's not the case. Also, have you seen how many PC games there are out there that don't require "fast" controls?

Do you not include handheld gaming like the Nintendo systems and the Sony PSP and Vita from being part of the gaming market? Being part of the market is not related to quality of controls or whether they meet your standards. I suppose we can't count consoles as part of the market, because they often have inferior controls to PC, right?

No you didn't. You only showed that Steam is doing well. Thaty doesn't mean the overall market segment is.

Ah, good. You'll easily be able to produce evidence to the contrary then. Wouldn't want to just spout off and not have any actual reasoning besides your own self certainly.

Spoilers: http://www.webpronews.com/pc-gaming-revenue-to-hit-24-billion-by-2017-2014-01

I never said that PC gaming had not grown. I just said that your Steam figures did not demonstrate what you were claiming. Which they did not.

Notice the only revenue drops are due to the scammy PC games (which sadly make money) moving to mobile. And I'd hardly consider those PC games.

Again with the weird definitions. It seems if it's not a game you like, then it's not a "PC Game" even if it runs on PC. That's the definition. Minesweeper is a PC game. Solitaire is a PC game. You don't get to exclude things from the market because they don't meet your arbitrary tastes. If it runs on a PC, it is a PC game. If it is an electronic game that runs on a processor, it is part of the game market, even if it's a terrible casual mobile game.

You can emulate it. That's still backwards compatibility. For example, the PS3 has PS1 backward compatibility even though they didn't "install" the PS1 OS on its hardware - they emulate it.

Not really, as the discussion was about the "inherent" backward-compatibility properties of the "PC" - see my previous post for elaboration.

 

[Thanatos2k]

Also, yes, I will argue about anything. What's wrong with that? The only way to engage in a fully articulated intellectual life is to be able to discuss and debate anything.

Well, when you do it obnoxiously it's not a discussion. And when you do it through "Must win at all costs" debate techniques no one gets anything out of it except growing distaste. For example, Jim smacked you down when you tried it earlier today. There is little intellectual about these posts.

Also, resurrecting this thread to quote warrior me is again not getting anyone anything, so I'm just going to stop here.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

Well, when you do it obnoxiously it's not a discussion. And when you do it through "Must win at all costs" debate techniques no one gets anything out of it except growing distaste.

How am I being obnoxious? And I do not care one whit about "winning." All I care about is a thorough discussion of all the issues.

For example, Jim smacked you down when you tried it earlier today.

"Smacked me down"? You mean, where he completely missed the point and posted an irrelevant comment, and accused me of something I have not done?

I guess that's a "smack down" if all you care about is a person's status, in which case, I guess Jim "wins" for being an employee and paid contributor to the site. But not from a rhetorical or factual perspective.

There is little intellectual about these posts.

Then it should be easy to define what a "PC" is, absolutely and clearly, right?

Also, resurrecting this thread to quote warrior me is again not getting anyone anything, so I'm just going to stop here.

"Quote warrior"? What the hell?

If you're actually about discussion, rather than about "winning" - then taking the classic "winning" move of "I'm having the last word, I'm out of here" is not a very good way to go about that.