I am most certainly hoping thats what he meant, I felt there was some ambiguity there so I clarified it. Then proceeded to join the discussion.
It is what he meant because there is only one way to read what he wrote.
But this is where you lose it. There's nothing wrong with adding clarification when he on the previous page mentioned a generational winner in context that addressed solely the US and not worldwide data, which is what is actually used to determine who wins a generation,
And when in the second post he very clearly mentions worldwide data, then goes on to again mention the winner of a generation,
And especially when I tagged the post where I included the clarification with this:
No he didn't he specifically mentioned the US in that post and only used US numbers, in a NPD thread about US sales. Just because he used the words winning the generation, which in the context of that post and this thread is regarding only the US.
Thats fine you can call it semantics and circular nonsense I don't really care either way I only started this because you were an ass in your post to jetjevons about being a drive by poster when you were clearly reading to much into these posts and felt the world needed your clarification when noone was taking that post out of context but you.Further explaining why I felt said clarification was necessary. You want to argue in circles about semantics on something thats really pointless. And you aren't really adding to the discussion at all. I mean, the more I think about this, I could have run into this thread and said something about japan and left, and you still would just have to live with it.
I clarified a statement he made that I felt could have been confusing the people arguing with him. If you don't feel it was necessary, fine, live with it. But I'm done with you, your circular nonsense and the off-topic discussion.