|
NobodyImportant -> RE: Grand Theft Auto 4 is complete smut (5/27/2008 6:07:07 AM)
|
quote:
perhaps you missed this nobodyimportant, since this thread is about GTA4, i dont think i need to keep naming the game, it is the issue. (post #125) No, this isn't how it works. You can't appeal to context like I'm an idiot and patronize me when I point out that what you said never happened: quote:
I have asked you to address my objections to that game alone, you cant or wont, i dont know which. You never asked or requested anything of the sort, yet you portray it as if I've refused. When I overlook you casting blame on me and suggest that a mistake was made, you turn around and point to context while insinuating that I've stupidly overlooked the obvious, as if that somehow explains or vindicates saying something which isn't true. I had assumed you were referring to something you had deleted from a draft and forgotten. I even went back and triple checked to make sure I didn't miss something because accidents happen - but what should I make of it now? You said "any form of entertainment" - and have said so repeatedly. You did not reduce this to GTA4, nor did you request that I assume your statements to be so restricted. There is no reason to believe that you meant for Ephesians 5 to apply only to this one case, or that it would stop there even if you intended it to. In fact, your first citation of Ephesians (Post #94) anchors your criticisms directly to music, film, and video games. You did not define any particular boundaries. I think it's reasonable to suppose that this bleeds over into the over-arching subject of game\media controversies in general, which Grand Theft Auto 4 is a part of, and which has been in discussion since the first page. You also completely ignored (twice) the point about portraying gamers as anti-Christ which, even if they play GTA4, is the main point I was making about what you've said, which you say I mischaracterize. If you want to add constraints now, you've got a lot of them to add which you should have added in the first place.
|
|
|
|