[kelnos]

> What you are doing is being hyper-pedantic. It is fucking tiresome when people do this online.

That's not pedantry. There's a huge difference between "they were unavailable and I couldn't get one at any price" and "I could have bought one from a scalper but I didn't trust them". Even if it's reasonable not to trust them (it is!), the first statement is sensational, and untrue, especially considering you emphasized "at any price" in your comment upthread.

> If you are going to be a smart arse, I will modify my statement to say "I could not get a card from a reputable online store as they were all out of stock and did not wish to risk buying from a less reputable one".

That's what you should have said in the first place; that would have been honest and correct.

And please, there's no need to call the other poster names. That's uncalled-for and childish. You seem to be new here (9-day-old account), so please read the site guidelines and turn it down a notch or three.

[JollySharp0]

> That's not pedantry. There's a huge difference between "they were simply unavailable and I couldn't get one at any price" and "I could have bought one from a scalper but I didn't trust them". Even if it's reasonable not to trust them (it is!), the first statement is sensational, and untrue, especially considering you emphasized "at any price" in your original comment.

It is for any normal person in relatively normal setting.

Only amongst technical people is this sort of discourse tolerated where someone pretends that an unreasonable option (the scalper in this case as you admitted yourself) should be included in a statement when it is perfectly obvious it should not be included because it is not in any way reasonable.

I could have flown to the US and bought a card or China. Is that reasonable? For most people it isn't reasonable. It wasn't for me. Buying from an untrustworthy seller, is unreasonable.

> the first statement is sensational, and untrue, especially considering you emphasized "at any price" in your original comment.

They were out of stock on every reputable site. Therefore I could not buy a card at any price from them because they didn't exist.

> That's what you should have said in the first place; that would have been honest and correct.

I was honest and correct to begin with. The poster was using prices and availability in the US and not the UK.

> And please, there's no need to call the other poster names.

I never called them names. I expressed my annoyance at their behaviour.

[Dylan16807]

> It is for any normal person in relatively normal setting.

A normal person understands scalping and that if they want it badly enough they can go on ebay.

They're not going to say it's "unavailable at any price" when it's right there for double the price.

If you're willing to pay the scalped price, the risk of using ebay is not in fact unreasonable.

[JollySharp0]

You are being a pendant as far as I am concerned and arguing semantics with me is not going to convince me and many others.

So I suggest in future you should learn that using this line of logic (where you expect me to do something unreasonable to a huge number of people) is not something that people are going to put up with. It is really annoying to have to converse in this manner and in fact I believe that often that is wholly disingenuous and I no longer wish to speak to you.

[Dylan16807]

If I categorized these situations the way you do, and I said what I'm saying, I would be a pedant.

But I see things a different way. The logic I'm actually using is not pedantic.

You calling me disingenuous over this is painful to look at. Get out of your own head for a second. We're using different premises, and we're reaching different conclusions because of that. My logic is fine, and your logic is fine.

[JollySharp0]

> If I categorized these situations the way you do, and I said what I'm saying, I would be a pedant.

I am not categorising any situation. The vast majority of people would omit unreasonable options.

I could buy a racing bike that is £5000 new, for £200 when I live in London (back in 2000s). The bike would most likely would have been stolen. So technically I can buy a £5000 bike for £200. But most people wouldn't want to buy from a thief and consider it unethical.

People feel similarly about scalpers and other untrustworthy sellers.

> You calling me disingenuous over this is painful to look at. Get out of your own head for a second.

You started the conversation claiming I was outright lying. Then when I clarified to you what I meant you continued claiming I was lying/misstating. That is really annoying.

If you could have just said "okay that is fair, while you might have been doing X and Y, I can understand why you didn't want to do that". That would have been fine. But that didn't happen.

[jrflowers]

I like these many posts about how you, specifically, chose not to use any of the available systems to get a GPU that rapidly organized and became common globally during lockdown. The line from “I just didn’t feel like doing something once” through to “My predictions for the future about a different problem are obviously true” is clear as day. Can’t see why anyone would disagree

[Dylan16807]

> You started the conversation claiming I was outright lying. Then when I clarified to you what I meant you continued claiming I was lying/misstating. That is really annoying.

I said "If you were offering anywhere near 6x MSRP" I didn't believe you, and it turns out you weren't offering 6x MSRP. So I wasn't calling you a liar.

> If you could have just said "okay that is fair, while you might have been doing X and Y, I can understand why you didn't want to do that". That would have been fine. But that didn't happen.

So if I had explicitly said "I think it's fine you didn't use ebay" that would have fixed everything? Because I never argued about your personal choice, I argued about you calling ebay "unreasonable".

Well for the record, I was going to say something like that in response to "If you are going to be a smart arse, I will modify my statement to say "I could not get a card from a reputable online store as they were all out of stock and did not wish to risk buying from a less reputable one"."

But then I saw you had called me "hyper-pedantic" and I focused on rebuffing that attack instead.

Edit: And it doesn't help that you never actually did that modification, and instead keep insisting that what you originally said means the same thing.

[kelnos]

> It is for any normal person in relatively normal setting.

I disagree. But clearly I'm not going to convince you (and vice versa), so let's just call it a day.

> I never called them names. I expressed my annoyance at their behaviour.

"Smart arse" is name-calling.

Why don't you step back from the keyboard for a bit and cool down. Might do you some good.

[JollySharp0]

> I disagree. But clearly I'm not going to convince you (and vice versa), so let's just call it a day.

Try it in a IRL conversation and see how quickly someone gets annoyed with you. It won't be very long.

> "Smart arse" is name-calling.

I said "If you are going to be a smart arse". Which means "If you are going to engage in this behaviour then ...".

I never called anyone names.

> Why don't you step back from the keyboard for a bit and cool down. Might do you some good.

I am perfectly fine. I can be mildly annoyed by someone and still be quite rational.

Also this sort of statement is close to concern trolling.

[8note]

i would certainly consider "at any price" to mean that you'd be willing to pay the 5x price to 20 different scammers and still got no card.

there might be a cultural difference between the old world and new world for what "at any price" means, but id take it to mean that to be at least spending $1M for it