|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Tutskii
|
Posted - 2011.07.01 18:25:00 -
[1]
How hard is to answer a "yes or no" question?
Are we gonna be told about japanese jeans again?
This is not Shakespeare you are writing and your evasion is not reassuring.
Also funny how "shortly" turned into "sometime not today"
|
Tutskii
|
Posted - 2011.07.01 18:52:00 -
[2]
Funny, I am typing this from my Iphone and the on screen keyboard does seem to have the proper keys to type "Yes" and "no"
Maybe Trebor got a defective one.
Protip: if you turn it 90 degrees you get a different keyboard with the keys in different places.
Maybe the y e s or n o touchscreen spaces work on that one.
|
Tutskii
|
Posted - 2011.07.01 19:19:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Raid'En Edited by: Raid''En on 01/07/2011 19:10:49
Originally by: Tutskii How hard is to answer a "yes or no" question?
Are we gonna be told about japanese jeans again?
This is not Shakespeare you are writing and your evasion is not reassuring.
Also funny how "shortly" turned into "sometime not today"
from what i have read these last days the issue with CCP not answering by a simple "yes" or "no" was because there were an issue on what is considered "vanity items" and what is not.
if answer is big, i think it's because they will explains what they include inside the definition of "vanity items", and give examples (or maybe all) of what will be added with MTs, and what will not be.
it will also avoid them be called liars later if they add something that people find strange ; if they tell now what will be it will be easier. and of course if they change their mind another time the rage of today would be nothing compared to what would happen. and with complete information it will be easier for everyone to think about how they consider these acceptable or not.
that's the only explanation fitting the context i can see.
Actually, this would be incorrect. If we have to redefine what "vanity" means then we are already in meaningless lawyer garbage land.
Defining vanity took the internet less than 30 seconds:
Quote: n. pl. van+i+ties 1. The quality or condition of being vain. 2. Excessive pride in one's appearance or accomplishments; conceit. See Synonyms at conceit. 3. Lack of usefulness, worth, or effect; worthlessness. 4. a. Something that is vain, futile, or worthless. b. Something about which one is vain or conceited.
Is there ambiguity in vain, futile, or worthless, or lack of usefulness?
I don't think so.
Any attempt to tamper with the definition would just be an attempt to stretch it to cover non vanity stuff. The question at the center of vanity is:
"Is it of any use?"
If it turns into:
"Does it hurt the sandbox?"
"Is it of use in combat?"
"It is of use in limiter circumstances"
Etc then in effect its being turned into a meaningless adjective which meaning will be modified to suit CCP's interest.
There is a reason the simple yellow question is simple, and CCP garbage statements are ambiguous junk like "Gold Ammo"
One is meant to obfuscate, the other, to make clear.
|
Tutskii
|
Posted - 2011.07.01 19:35:00 -
[4]
Quote: #tweetfleet #eveonline #csm6 Dinner with the CSM. Brb. Tomorrow. With a hangover. ktouborg Just now more retweet favorite reply
It seems everyone's priorities are straight.
|
Tutskii
|
Posted - 2011.07.01 20:01:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Tugrath Akers The statement should have been released before you all went barhopping tonight.
|
|
|
|