If I could, I would have done so in the beginning. If I could, I also wouldn't have said that I couldn't. If I wanted to actually make that argument, I would have. The reason I haven't (and I'm not sure why you think that I did) is precisely because I lack that information. Also, evidence can be coincidence. That's decided after it is presented and does not stop it being evidence, it only makes that evidence irrelevant. That is decided after it was interpreted and discussed. But don't worry, I will not explain what evidence is again. If you didn't get it after three explanations, I doubt you'll get it after a fourth, even if it might stop you from making bad analogies.
I believe Abyssea was bad for the game, for a list of reasons, and not all of them were bad for me. I cannot prove any of them, which is why I didn't pretend to do so, although I have good arguments for all of them, but this is not the place to discuss it. If you wanna open a new Abyssea discussion thread, I'll be happy to present them.
By people like you, I'm sure. Other scientist would scoff at you for not listening to that guy's arguments, such as cities being merged shortly after a McDonald's restaurant opened in them, or the fact that fatty and unhealthy food becoming immensely popular should slow down the population growth, not accelerate it.


Reply With Quote