Fallout: New Vegas - Sawyer Interview Tidbits

JDR13 said:

Lol…right, and when I immediately replied "So that explanation justifies a lack of options? " that didn't tip you off to anything, right? Please… just stop.

Click to expand...

No, it honestly didn't - because without any sort of context (you didn't quote anything) I was left assuming what you meant, which was that you were replying directly to my statement "I would rather have restrictions based on things that make sense." Because, without you saying otherwise, I don't think it was unreasonable for me to make that assumption.

Look - a few posts back I stated "I completely agree" in a two paragraph post. Yet you specifically chose the OTHER part, and I can only assume that you did it for a specific reason. Why do I say that? Because two posts lated I once again noted "we agree" and even bolded it ... yet in your quote you once again made a conscious choice to not include that part. I am honestly not sure of the rationale.

But before you made a point - I misquoted you. While I was only attempting to paraphrase my understanding of your point when I said "I wasn't sure based on what you said about 'no restrictions of any kind'", I certainly could have made the effort to make sure I got your wording correct, but I didn't. So I apologize for that misquote and for any subsequent misunderstanding.

txa1265 said:

Look - a few posts back I stated "I completely agree" in a two paragraph post. Yet you specifically chose the OTHER part, and I can only assume that you did it for a specific reason. Why do I say that? Because two posts lated I once again noted "we agree" and even bolded it … yet in your quote you once again made a conscious choice to not include that part. I am honestly not sure of the rationale.

Click to expand...

You are correct in assuming I chose that part for a specific reason, and I thought I made it obvious what the reason was. I felt you were misquoting me, nothing more. What does it matter whether or not I included the other paragraph? I didn't quote it because there was no reason to. It simply had nothing to do with the part that I felt I needed to correct, there was no hidden motive behind it. You seem to have a habit of making something out of insignificant details. Not trying to fan the flames here, just telling you how it seems sometimes.

Anyways, I'll try to make a conscious effort to be more specific in the future. I realize that the brevity of my posts sometimes leaves them lacking in clarity.

JDR13 said:

Not trying to fan the flames here, just telling you how it seems sometimes.

Click to expand...

I think the problem is that despite largely agreeing on a wide range of topics our stylistic methods diverge just enough that we often end up at odds over what amounts to minutia, and while each carries on trying to get to closure using our own style the other thinks 'if he would only ...'. And so it goes.

JDR13 said:

Anyways, I'll try to make a conscious effort to be more specific in the future. I realize that the brevity of my posts sometimes leaves them lacking in clarity.

Click to expand...

And as mentioned I will try to ask questions more directly rather than pick apart semantics ... and also honor wishes to just drop stuff when requested. Though I think in this particular case it was productive ...

Ah, the old style and substance debate. At least you keep it civil!!

@JDR and txa
You are now sounding like politicians:
Politician A: "It's obvious that we need to invest more money to improve education in this country!"
Politician B: "No! We need to improve schools and give our children a better education by spending our money in that section!"
Politician A: "That's crazy! What about education? We obviously need more money!"

Politicians always agree that certain topics are important, but they never actually listen to each other, so they never manage to sort out their dififerences..

Both are just fussy old men Fortunately for me, I'm just an old fogey.