Jump to content

ledzep's Photo

ledzep

Member Since 15 Feb 2010
OFFLINE Last Active Today, 4:52 PM

#2523328 Appeal of new 8-bit software.

Posted by ledzep on Wed May 16, 2012 3:15 PM

For me the appeal of new 8-bit games is the same it always was, 30 years ago or today. Why, just becuase technology has made games much more sophisticated on new technology (and I enjoy the latest games on new tech too), should it make new games on old, less sophisticated systems of years passed any less enjoyable?

Why, just because they are new games on old tech should they be any less fun to play than new games were years ago when the the old tech was new? I still enjoy playing chess, and it's an ancient game. Is chess only fun to play now with 3D graphics on the latest PC? People still like board games, even though they rely on no technology at all. Baseball and Football have been around for 100-200 years, but they are even more popular today than ever! Old does not equal bad or boring!!!

We have tons of interactive media, but billions of people world-wide still enjoy non-interactive movies, new or classic, or even classic books (whether in books or on a Nook or other electronic tablet). are new books only good if read on technolgoy instead in a bound book? So why should it be any different than playing new games on old systems?

Personally I think it's all in people's heads. They have been brain-washed by the industry and media into thinking it's only good if it is on the latest technology. If more people would give old tech a chance, they too would realize it's still good too.


I see this mostly the same way. If it was good then, why shouldn't it still be good now? Now, that's a bit subjective, some things (disco) were abominations and thank Odin they're gone. But other things stand the test of time so why not still like them?

Much of my liking of 8-bit software is, honestly, because I grew up with it, it's what I got used to. Atari and Vectrex games meant the world to me back then and hold a special place with me to this day. I very much doubt that if were born today and never laid eyes on 8-bit software until I became an adult 20 years from now that I would be compelled to like any of it or seek it out or try to re-invent it or even understand why anyone would give a damn about it. It's how I feel about '50s-era pop music, it is horrible and I can't believe anyone could like that stuff and I wouldn't care if I never heard any of it again. But people who grew up with that music love it. Same goes for the 8-bit games.

Part of what I like about 8-bit games (not including 8-bit word processors and art programs and such because those are miserable failures compared to what's currently available) is the fact that since the graphics were, for the most part, laughably primitive and incapable of representing reality, the programmers had to concentrate on making the action playable and fun and interesting. Simple rules, simple goals. Asteroids and Star Castle can go on forever doing the same thing. Xevious takes a while to go through the entire land but it's just super Galaxian. But I'm a big twitch/shooter game fan so I'm biased. Sure, if you made Dig Dug today you could render everything practically photoreal and it might look like real dirt with real beings being blown up by real guys in vacc suits. So what, I never cared that Pole Position didn't look like a live-action race or that Tempest didn't represent anything real, I loved the gameplay and the difficulty levels. Defender supplies more than enough blocky 8-bit shapes to convince you that you're seeing a spaceship flying over ground rescuing humans and killing aliens, nothing would be gained by adding 64-bit graphics but everything would be lost if the action changed. Vector graphics are even worse, wire-frame shapes moving around other wire-frame shapes? But the gameplay of Battlezone and Star Trek is unmatched... if you like that kind of gameplay. If you're into RPGs or first-person perspective combat shooters with realistic texture maps and interactive lighting then all the 8-bit games suck.

Another part of what I like about them is due to nostalgia. I see those games, I see just the packaging, and I feel like a kid again. It applies to original Hot Wheels (before they ruined them), LEGO sets, WB and MGM cartoons, all of that stuff. One of the cool things about new homebrew games is that it allows me to feel that "oh boy, a new game came out" rush again, like when I first owned an Atari 2600 (and, later, an Atari 800) and went to the store to buy a game for it. Now I have a Vectrex and Atari 5200 as well so that's 4 separate ways to experience that feeling again when someone makes a new homebrew game. I mean, the Crash wasn't necessary, those systems could have survived longer than 1984 and some company could have released a "real" Warrior for the Vectrex or an official Warlords for the 5200, right? So we had to wait 20+ years, big deal. It is for that reason that I very very very much prefer homebrews released as physical carts with boxes and manuals, so it's exactly like when new games came out in stores back in the day. It also explains my love of the new Camaros, Challengers and Mustangs even if they're not as cool as the original '60s/'70s versions, the nostalgia pull still works because they finally got close enough to that ideal.

I think the OP would get a truer, unbiased answer if he were to ask the question only to 8-bit software fans who didn't grow up with 8-bit games and only got into them later in life so nostalgia and familiarity couldn't play into the answer.


#2481605 FINALLY! Vectrex overlay repro's

Posted by ledzep on Sat Mar 10, 2012 3:53 PM

Well, if either of you are still looking for reasons to make even more Vectrex overlays, you might want to consider the ZVG board + hooking it to a Vectrex as a vector monitor = a market, though probably very small, for overlays to mimic the original arcade game looks. Some aren't going to be "right", the color vector games like Space Duel and Tempest would need some imaginative but otherwise incorrect color schemes and some games like the Star Trek Strategic Operations Simulator could have correct colors for the bridge info but not really for the main screen, but all the black & white games or games that don't have shifting elements could really use overlays. Battlezone would be a great one. I have one of those boards and the Vectrex wiring harness so at some point I'm going to have a Vectrex Zektor VectorMAME (say that 3 times fast) game droid. Would be cool to be able to get overlays. Can you imagine, a little Aztarac bubble overlay?


#2480962 FINALLY! Vectrex overlay repro's

Posted by ledzep on Fri Mar 9, 2012 12:03 PM


I discovered your ebay auction a week or two ago and I DID initially mistake the item as being a full set. Yes I thought the price was quite low for such a set, but it wasn't until i tried to add the auction to my "watch list" that i realized what you were selling for that price. At that point the site prompted me to select a particular overlay.

It's hard for me to discern the quality of your overlays from the pictures. I'd highly recommend providing pics of each overlay with the matching game running behind it.


That is definitely in my plans. Great suggestion.

I am awaiting the arrival of my Multi-Cart to fill in the gaps of the games I don't have. At that time, expect to see higher resolution photos and YouTube linked videos of each overlay with its corresponding game.


Fantastic. While I have most of the original games boxed with their overlays it's good to know that there are replacements available so the originals can stay in decent shape longer.

I have a couple of questions for you -

1) Have you considered talking to the various homebrewists out there who make games without overlays in order to come up with some "official" overlay designs for those newer games? I think it would be cool to have the option to buy one or more overlays from you for those games and that they would be what they "should" be in terms of design. I know a few programmers have created or made available overlay files for emulators but I'm sure most of the homebrew games don't have any.

2) Are your overlays arranged exactly like the originals or have you made adjustments for some that might not have been aligned correctly? I think I remember that Star Castle and maybe a couple others don't really line up with the game graphics correctly and could use some tweaking.

Anyway, thanks for doing this!


#2469107 Most overrated games in your opinion

Posted by ledzep on Sat Feb 18, 2012 9:23 PM

For classic I'd have to say any and all Pac-Man games. I never understood what a maze of dots being erased did for people. And this extends to collecting arcade games. I know some people who would like to get into that and don't have enough room but, boy, if they had the chance, they'd get a Pac-Man machine (or Donkey Kong, another overrated game). Seriously? They're the size of a refrigerator (I know, I own a few) and if you could manage to buy one the first one you'd go for is Pac-Man?

As for more modern games? Guitar Hero and it's more irritating cousin Rock Band. It's Simon!! Are you kidding me?!? Nobody would spend lots of money on a Simon game but, man, every person I know who owned an XBox talked up Guitar Hero and how cool it was to "play" his favorite songs. You're not playing your favorite song, you're playing Simon while your favorite song is playing through the speakers! Rock Band is even worse because there were people forming "groups" that "play" songs, they put so much effort into getting good at pressing buttons in sync with songs, it baffles me to no end. If you're that much into music and learning to play a guitar or learning that favorite song, buy a musical instrument and pay for lessons! I tried to play at some friend's Rock Band party, I couldn't get into it. I know how hard it is to learn to play guitar and this was certainly not the same thing. But people were impressed, acting like their friends were actually musicians playing songs in front of them. Wow, you're really good! Ya, at Simon.


#2335755 Best TV's for classic consoles.

Posted by ledzep on Wed Jul 27, 2011 10:00 PM

Not to pile on, but this idea that "it ain't authentic if it ain't RF" has come up several times, and in my opinion it doesn't make much sense. I addressed it in another thread recently:

All an A/V upgrade does is take the original signals from the console and amplify or reshape them into a purer form, which can be used directly by modern televisions and monitors. The RF modulator might have been a necessary intermediary in the 70s and 80s, when all we had were televisions with antenna inputs, but it isn't any longer. By installing an A/V upgrade, you're really removing a restriction to seeing and hearing the console in its best possible state, not adding something that the console didn't originally have.

However, if your console works fine through RF and you're happy using it that way, that's your choice. In some cases (like the Intellivision), I've found that the available A/V upgrades don't give you enough of an improvement to justify the trouble and expense.

Quite. I bought one of the last of the Sony Trinitrons before they all disappeared. Fantastic, it's my main and only TV. I cannot stand seeing the noise in LCD and plasma displays, improved as they have become. And I, too, have heard people complain about the massive weight (close to 300lbs) of that set. So what? Am I carrying it anywhere? No. That Sony is HD and has multiple inputs including HDMI. I wish SED had been pursued, I don't know what I'm going to do when this CRT kicks off.

As for the "it ain't authentic if it ain't RF" discussion, I agree that it doesn't make sense. Furthermore, I lived through that era. You know what else you need for a truly "authentic" experience? For all video games to be 8-bit and for arcades with classic games to be widely accessible. Because back then we didn't know that there would be 16-bit and 32-bit and 64-bit consoles and online gaming. Part of the "authentic" experience was the assumption that we were playing the "best" consoles available. And back then it was sort of true when there was nothing but Atari 2600s, then Atari 5200s and Colecovisions and Intellivisions. But now they are grossly underpowered, slow, and the games are blocky-looking compared to Playstations and Xboxes. And there aren't loads of twitch arcade games that people are expecting to be converted to home consoles. And no vector games! Crap!!

I have a modded Atari 5200 for two reasons. First, I don't care to have that goofy power block/switchbox permanently hooked to my setup. Second, it's very easy for me to take that 5200 to someone else's house and simply hook it up to his flatscreen TV with the RCA jacks. I plan to mod my Sears Telegames Video Arcade (Atari 2600) for the same reasons. And to avoid excessive color bleed.

You can't beat CRTs for the classic console gaming experience. But you won't get half of the potential out of that CRT if you feed the console through an RF switchbox hanging off the back of it, either.


#2335051 Opinion of Vectrex.

Posted by ledzep on Tue Jul 26, 2011 11:59 PM

What, what, what?!? How in the heck could I miss a release such as War of the Worlds?!?

Getting my payment out post haste. Thanks for sharing ledzep!!

No problem, glad another fan has found that guy's site! The more homebrews the better, I say. I still can't believe nobody has made a decent Tempest clone besides the now very rare Tsunami. But hopefully the more people out there keeping this amazing droid alive, the more opportunities for the "lost" vector games to be added. We're one working trackball away from Quantum, you know.


#2334276 Opinion of Vectrex.

Posted by ledzep on Mon Jul 25, 2011 11:02 PM

I can't wait for Warrior, the old arcade game that Fury Unlimited is making. I still need to break out my Vectrex to play War Of The Worlds. What's next, Red Baron?


#2329178 5200 marketing question

Posted by ledzep on Tue Jul 19, 2011 10:59 PM

I accidentally raised from the dead an older thread on this topic attempting to link to it :dunce: but there is some good info on the topic there.

I would speculate that Atari couldn't get enough supplies together for a wide Christmas '82 campaign and concentrated on the U.S and Toronto for those initial months and then once the crash started in 83 they decided not to risk a full expansion into Canada as Coleco had scooped them.

Unless someone can find some Sears or other catalogs from 82-83 that prove otherwise, I think its clear that the 5200 never had anything more than a test launch in Southern Ontario.


Speaking of Sears, I wonder what a Tele-games version of the 5200 would have been packaged like. Still with games in black boxes with different names? Maybe it would be the Super Video Arcade. I'm a sucker for the Sears version of the 2600, obviously.


#2162449 Digital Joysticks provide better control than Analog Joysticks

Posted by ledzep on Mon Dec 20, 2010 3:02 AM

[quote name='atariksi' date='Thu Dec 2, 2010 6:48 AM' timestamp='1291301333' post='2148937']
I already gave you all the parameters. Just consider the Donkey Kong experiment who data was recently posted and you should be able to see how the uncertainty regions and long throw play a detrimental role:
(1) Jumping from one ledge to another in pie screen, 3rd platform is one;
(2) Jumping over the oil barrel is another one;
(3) Jumping amidst a bunch of barrels with some diagonal jumps in both directions and some straight up jumps;
(4) Getting to an exact point under the ladder quickly and climbing it (on all screens);
(5) Jumping from escalators back and forth to get the prize;
and other spots requiring timing things.

I played the game with gravis joystick as pictured and with Atari 2600 joystick as pictured. I played the pie screen multiple times with each. At least 10 times each.
[/quote]

No, you didn't begin to give all the parameters. I gave them to you, more than once. For a start, you have failed to present who comprised your control and experimental groups of gamers. Multiple gamers is a requirement for any experiment that claims that digital joysticks provide better control than analog joysticks for every gamer.

Nobody gives a shit how many times you played anything or what you played it with, don't you understand? If you played a games at least 10 times then all you have is data for yourself. And since we all know you suck at using analog joysticks the data is worthless for substantiating any claims about digital joysticks applying to any gamers other than yourself (and your lipsticked imaginary pal).

I will "consider" the Donkey Kong "experiment" when you release all the parameters of your experiments and all the data generated by them. Until then it's just biased speculation on your part that your results apply to anyone else. I am able to see how the uncertainty regions and long throw play a detrimental role for you because you suck at playing games with analog joysticks. What has yet to be established is evidence that they play a detrimental role for anyone else. You know how you can begin to establish that? Hmm? You got it, release data that shows how other game players suffered the same problems with your "uncertainty regions" and "long throw play". Aaaaaaw, but that would mean you'd have to do something you are philosophically against doing and that is actually running a comprehensive, unbiased experiment using a control and an experimental group. Aw, man!

[quote]
I have done both. You just keep misreading or not reading the points I have made. And stop with the name calling. You need to be emotionally unbiased to even discuss scientific experiments what to speak of performing them.

[some rubbish deleted]
[/quote]

You have?!? Well hot damn, that's great! So where is it? Where is your evidence that your claim that it's a scientific fact that digital joysticks provide better control than analog joysticks has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true?

[awaiting some rubbish relating to how you don't need to provide links to authoritative sources because you don't want to]

[quote]
No, if you make 100 experiments of F=ma and you release 10 experiments that show F=ma. What difference does it make whether you post data for the other 90. I posted the ones that are popular titles and narrowed the data to where there's high failure rate for analog joysticks; its easier to discuss small sets than to dump megabytes of the hard drive on a discussion forum.
[/quote]

Almost. If I, like you, claimed to have run 100 experiments of F=ma and then only release the parameters and data from 10 of those experiments while refusing to release the parameters and data for the other 90 by hiding behind idiotic claims that logic is an acceptable substitute or that people can infer the results for the other 90 experiments based off of the measly 10 that I grudgingly present then I would be laughed out of whatever scientific institution I had made that claim in. Just like everyone (minus Didntknow16) has been laughing at you ever since you revealed that you don't have the "megabytes" of data for the supposed "hundreds" of experiments you pretend to have run.

[quote]
Nope, I clearly stated that the analog joystick "hatred" was to emphasize my point early in the thread since you were mixing up other controllers (go back and read it). And as a follow-up I stated that I can hate things AFTER establishing they are inferior. I still use analog joysticks since some software only support analog joysticks on PC/A5200.
[/quote]

Retroactive excuses to distance yourself from your admission of bias don't play here, my redundantly incorrect friend.

So you have established that analog joysticks are inferior? When/where did you do that? I mean, if you'd done that you'd have like, I don't know, evidence to back up this new, unsubstantiated claim, right? Do you? Let's see it.

Dare I say it? Put-up or shut-up time again, haahahaa.

[quote]
Your reasoning does not follow (assuming it's reasoning). Nor does calling it crap change the truth. If I want to prove that infinite levels employed in a scenario produce zero control, I have to resort to math or deductive logic as all analog joysticks digitize their values to a limited range (0..1300 or whatever). You can only experiment on a limited set. If I want to prove that analog joysticks have longer throw in general, then you need a logical/mathematical proof rather than an experimental since experiment can only take into account a limited number of joysticks and their throw distance. Nonetheless, the experiment by itself is also proving digital joysticks provide better control than analog joysticks.
[/quote]

You didn't address the argument. So you are now claiming that you have to resort to math or deductive logic (neither of which you've done effectively) as all analog joysticks digitize their values to a limited range? Haahahaa, you are now stating that all your "hundreds" of experiments that are the core of your "scientific fact" are flawed or inconclusive!! Fantastic, you've just negated yourself and all the hours you've spent taking pictures of TV screens with games displayed on them and pretending that that was "data". What a colossal blunder.

And, for the record, if you want to prove that analog joysticks have longer throws in general you most definitely do not need a logical/mathematical proof, you need to physically measure all the joysticks and the ranges of their travel. Any claim about a physical property must be proven or supported by physical measurements, genius. Only an idiot would attempt to use a logical/mathematical proof to prove a physical property of something that can be physically measured.

How do you prove that DVDs hold more information than CDs? Logic/math? No, you see how much data can be stored on each type, from each manufacturer using each method of disk writing. How do you prove that plasma monitors display a wider color range than LCD monitors? Logic/math? No, you pump the same images into both types, from multiple manufacturers and you physically measure the color ranges of those monitors. How do you prove that analog joysticks have longer throws than digital joysticks? Logic/math? Only if you're retarded. You measure the joystick lengths and travel ranges of every available joystick, analog and digital, that you can get your hands on and rely on manufacturers' specs for the ones you can't get to. "Logic/math" is for people who don't want real data when it's freely available. "Logic/math" is for people who know that the physical data will refute their faulty claims, so better to not even introduce it.

[quote]
You've got your PMails and forums confused. I have every right to answer any post which is related to my experiment especially if it mistakenly disparages it (like in your case).

[more self-contradictory stuff from you about data being useless deleted]

If you want more data, then stop claiming it's useless. Actually, you are unfit to talk about scientific experiments given your biased stands. People who are interested in the truth can talk about scientific experiments.
[/quote]

I admit, it's hard to tell when I'm talking to you or you since aprioriksi and Didntknow16 both answer posts in the same way using the same phrases. It's not like I can see when you're dressed like a boy and when you're dressed like a girl, right?

You have every right to corroborate your claims of having run "hundreds" of experiments that generated "megabytes" of data (and not those useless jpegs of TV screens) yet you refuse. Why? No mistake, you have disparaged yourself by making excuses for not providing the minimum to prove your claim. What's the minimum? Why, all the parameters for your experiments and all the data those experiments generated, of course.

[more excuses and distractions about "logic" and "emotion" expected]

I don't want more data, I want all the data. I'm not saying your data is useless, I'm saying providing incomplete, out-of-context subsets of your claimed total amount of data is useless. And it is useless for you to hold back the rest of this supposed data. All that does is reinforce the obvious truth that you don't actually have any of those "megabytes" of data.

You are unfit to talk about having run "hundreds" of experiments until you release all the data and all the parameters of your claimed experiments. So far you have fallen so very short.

[quote]
[quote]
[quote]
As for hypocrite, I find two definitions that apply to you -
[/quote]
Once again, just making a claim doesn't make it true. Read on:

[quote]
Definition of HYPOCRITE

1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
[/quote]
That doesn't apply to anyone.
[/quote]

Oh yes it does. You. You have tried multiple times to present an appearance of virtue. You cry about "personal attacks" as if everyone is using them on you and you have never done the same on this thread (another fault), you try to turn your monumental failures to support your claims of running hundreds of experiments that generated megabytes of data into a virtue by hiding behind "logic" and "math", like those are higher forms of proof instead of simply shutting everyone down by presenting all your data.

[quote]
[quote]
2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

I go around asking for proof from blowhards who claim to have proof yet repeatedly make excuses as to why they won't present that proof.
[/quote]

You misunderstood that definition. You are making claims that are unfounded yet demand proof from others. That's hypocracy as it applies to you.
[/quote]

You misunderstand your understanding of the definition. You have repeatedly contradicted yourself in this thread, you are guilty of personal attacks on forum members while simultaneously complaining about personal attacks you claim are aimed at you, you guilty of claiming to have followed the scientific method while failing to have run a comprehensive experiment using control and experimental groups as well as communicating your results and you have claimed that your biased opinion about digital joysticks is a scientific fact while failing to have shown where it has been confirmed repeatedly and been accepted as true (that means by most everybody, not just you and your menstruating puppet).

Put-up or shut-up time again. Release all the data and all the parameters from all your experiments or admit by your failure to do so that you are a fraud.


#2157677 Digital Joysticks provide better control than Analog Joysticks

Posted by ledzep on Tue Dec 14, 2010 2:59 AM


All the parameters are missing. Every specific move you made in your fake experiment. You can't just say that you "played hundreds of games" or you ran your experiment a hundred times, you have to spell out what you did, how you did it, who you did it to,

I gave you list of games in post #114, 137. That's enough for the conclusion which also happens to be logical and mathematically supported. All parameters are present. My playing of Popeye and DK was given in REC files. I don't need to play the whole game to show the higher failure rate of analog joysticks. Just spots where the uncertainty and long throw a play a big role. If you want to see the experiment repeated live, come over and I'll put it in your face since you can't seem to do it yourself. As I said, I played hundreds of games but whatever data is presented is sufficient to draw the conclusion.


A "list of games" is not all the parameters, so that is definitely far far from "enough" for a conclusion. The only thing "logical" about your position is that it is logical to assume that you will continue to make excuses for failing to reveal how you ran your experiments, who you ran them on, what gear you ran them with, what data was gathered from these "hundreds" of experiments and what the conclusions, if any, were the result. Adding up the number of times you refuse to follow the scientific method does not mathematically support your theory (even though it is a rapidly increasing value). You haven't even looked at that link, have you? No, of course not. If you had you would see what it is you are required to do as someone who claims to have run "hundreds" of experiments. Yet you won't. For shame.

Nobody cares what your playing of Popeye and DK resulted in. Why? Because you insist that digital joysticks provide better control than analog joysticks for everybody, not just you. Nobody disputes that you hate analog joysticks and suck at using them. What everybody disputes is that you have proven that almost everybody scores higher when playing video games with digital joysticks as opposed to analog joysticks, something you have claimed more than once yet never supported with a shred of evidence. All we get is samples of games you have played. You do not represent all or even most video game players. You merely represent yourself and your cross-dressing alter-ego.

I want to see you run this lie of an experiment you claim to have run. That means that when I show up you better have -

(1) a control group of video game players and an experimental group of video game players who are participating in a double-blind experiment (meaning they don't know what controllers they're actually using for a specific game and neither do you until you check the controllers afterwards in order to negate your overbearing bias towards one type of controller),
(2) a series of sample joysticks for the gamers to use, some of which are actual digital joysticks, some of which are actual analog joysticks, some of which are digital joysticks with analog joystick guts and some which are analog joysticks with digital joystick guts so that they can be randomly used by the gamers (each with a unique marking so that you can match them to the test runs later),
(3) a large sample of games to be played that include games that are geared towards digital joysticks, games that are geared towards analog joysticks and games that are geared more towards other controller types (trackballs, paddles, etc.) but that can be played with joysticks,
(4) a video camera to record every gaming run by every gamer in either test group,
(5) an accurate way to record the outputs from the various joysticks (not any useless joystick "simulator") that are hooked into the gaming console. This console should be one that can both accept a number of different joysticks and be able to read both types of joysticks natively.

I list this out for you because we all know that you have done nothing like this before. You have made it clear that you only tested yourself, which makes your theory worthless. You have made it clear that you are unaware of or incapable of understanding the scientific method (I put that same link in again in order to give you the opportunity to ignore it twice) which makes your testing methods worthless. So now I have done for you what you cannot do for yourself, which is formulate a comprehensive, unbiased experiment for you to conduct. I expect to see at least 6 people in the control group and another 6 in the experimental group (although more would make for a more convincing test). These people should be of varying video gaming abilities and experience.


Not familiar with "Dr. Frog", but I have heard of Dr. Jackass. Have you? Goes like this. Once a puma living in the hills came to visit Dr. Jackass who spent all his time online.

You are just choosing random analogies. Dr. Frog did not want to perform the experiment because he was narrow-minded and considered himself a big-shot. You are just name-calling. Once again you fail to understand that logic/math is not a replacement for the experiment. The experiment and logic/math are two ways to prove my point.

"Accepted by many" doesn't have to mean majority. There are other people who accept that digital joysticks provide superior control than analog joysticks-- I mentioned some of those big names-- MasterPlay, Amiga Corp., Commodore, Atari, etc. etc. And you see from the polls many people besides the two active arguers accept the same. You are just speculating and acting like Dr. Frog: "I don't know of anyone besides you two who makes such a claim." That's your limited vision.


You chose an analogy that had nothing to do with the debate and I found one that directly applies to you. Which one is random, again?

Where do you get the idea that I'm "just name-calling"? If it's ok for you to reference a story with two frogs in it then I can reference a story that involves a mountain lion and a donkey. Now I wonder why you would think that "jackass" was aimed at you. Psychologically project much?

Yes, the experiment and logic/math are two ways to prove your point. Let us know when you actually accomplish either of those.

You see from your own poll that many people besides the legion of people refuting you accept that analog joysticks are better. Since you are so terrible with English I will mention now that corporations are not "people", so when you claim that "there are other people who accept that digital joysticks provide superior control than analog joysticks" and then list gaming/computer companies you sound even more ridiculous than you normally do when you are merely making excuses for why you won't release all the data from your experiments along with all the parameters involved in those experiments. Or are you saying you know individuals named Atari, Amiga Corp., etc.? I suppose you might know someone who insists on being called "Commodore" but why would you want to?

I'm not speculating, I am certain that you will never, ever, back up your claims about having "megabytes" of data from "hundreds" of experiments.

P.S. Put-up or shut-up time. Release all the data from your "experiments" along with all the parameters from those experiments or it's colossal fail for you.


#2156525 Digital Joysticks provide better control than Analog Joysticks

Posted by ledzep on Sun Dec 12, 2010 4:38 PM

You can stop speculating as there's more than two people in this thread who disagree with you what to speak of the world.


Besides you and Didntknow16, who are the others who disagree with him? Because I only see you two.

Nor does majority make you right. Nor does speculating about people's character make your useless speculative argument any stronger.


If majority doesn't make him right then it doesn't make you right, either. So explain why at the start of this demonstration of your bias that you made a point of mentioning how everybody (majority) knows that digital joysticks provide better control than analog joysticks and that lots of other people have run the same experiments (you provide ZERO proof for that, by the way) and they all came to the same conclusion. If majority doesn't make you right then having lots of people supposedly getting the same results that you got is worthless and a waste of time to mention. And you are now stating that the results of your poll will be worthless, too, because if more people vote for digital joysticks that doesn't make you or your poll right, haahahaaha. Way to negate yourself. If you want people to think that the results of your poll matter then you have to agree that majority matters and that makes him right, not you.

Stop speculating. I'm going to let you think about it and calm down before I answer the rest of your gibberish and drivel since they don't even address the points he made.


#2156505 Digital Joysticks provide better control than Analog Joysticks

Posted by ledzep on Sun Dec 12, 2010 4:18 PM

Saying digital joysticks > analog joysticks in control is mathematical just like F=ma.


Why, because you used a greater-than sign? It's that easy? What are the values for "digital joystick" and "analog joystick", then? Here, try these -

aprioriksi + Didntknow16 = same guy

claiming to have "megabytes" of data from "hundreds" of experiments < actually providing all the data and all the parameters of those experiments

aprioriksi claims of having "megabytes" of data * number of posts where he refuses to supply all his data and all his experimental parameters = amount of times he reinforces that he is lying

What kind of math is that? Failgebra?

I am not sure about what you meant by scientific method is world of bias, skepticism, opinion, etc.


You're not sure? Is it because you're analog and therefore have ZERO control of your existence?


#2156496 Digital Joysticks provide better control than Analog Joysticks

Posted by ledzep on Sun Dec 12, 2010 4:10 PM

(Since nobody else seemed to notice the major flaw in aprioriksi's "thinking"...)


You know what sounds familiar is you giving another excuse for not presenting your supposed data. You wouldn't want to present any data to anybody because you don't have any of it.

It's in front of your face. And it's megabytes of it. You don't need anymore to draw the conclusion which was also established logically/mathematically. One image is 640*480*24 bits is 900K and I gave you several images where there is high failure rate. That's megabytes of data. I have tons more but it's unnecessary to draw the conclusion.


Wait, so you're saying that the size of your worthless jpeg picture of a computer monitor showing a moment in a video game contributes to your claim of "megabytes" of data?!? Hahaaha, really? That's amazing! Why stop at 640x480x24 bits? You could have really solidified your position by taking your jpeg into Photoshop and upping the resolution! I mean if the image was increased in size to 1280x960x24 bits that would get you 4 times the amount of "data", man, that would be even better! Who could possibly deny your findings then?!?

Everybody. I commend your herculean efforts to simultaneously refuse to admit that you have no data and to prove that you have "megabytes" of it with that idiotic image size comment. Nice touch releasing your "data" in a format that some of us can't read instead of doing the correct thing and converting that data into easy-to-read graphs or tables. You have claimed to have "megabytes" of data from "hundreds" of experiments. Prove it.

Shitty try, there, and now you claim again to have "tons more". Do bits in your world have weight? Really? Is this why you keep referencing F=ma? Maybe that's why it's so difficult for you to meet the requirements of the scientific method and release all your data along with the parameters of your experiment, because the bits weigh so much and you can't pour them all down your internet connection without crushing your computer.


It's so obvious that those pictures are merely pictures of TV screens with one moment of a video game displayed on them and it is impossible to know if they were taken during your/his/their experiment or simply Photoshopped in from some other source.

You are scraping the bottom of the barrel. You can play those games yourself and see those images will occur during those games. The REC files are recordings of the motion.


Thank you for proving my point. Of course if I (or anybody else) play those games those images will occur during those games. That will happen whether I (or anybody else) is using an analog or digital joystick. Which means your pictures are worthless as data that supports your theory that digital joysticks provide better control than analog joysticks. Those exact same jpegs also illustrate moments where people playing using analog joysticks have more control than their digital joystick-using counterparts. How can anyone know by just looking at still images? They can't. They need all the data. That means you releasing the parameters of your "experiments" and releasing comparative video and sensor readings of the moment to moment game plays of all the members of your control and experimental groups. You do have control and experimental groups, right? You do have recordings of each game play run for each player using each joystick being tested, right? No self-respecting scientist or educated person claiming to have run experiments would be without that basic data. I can just guess where you wind up in that assessment.


Absolutely true, I don't see the data because you haven't released it,...All you and your other persona do is present excuses and claim you don't have to do the only thing that you are required to do after claiming to have megabytes of data from conducted experiments.

P.S. Remember to attach the files from you fantasy experiments and their imaginary data this time.

You are caught in a bubble. The files are attached like they were before. They are sufficient to expose the flaws of analog joysticks. The REC files are for all three-- keyboard, digital joystick, and analog joystick. Motion parameters are for the screenshot given.


Yes, I am caught in a bubble that contains people who actually back up their statements and actually support their claims of having run "hundreds" of experiments" and having "megabytes" of data. Your three .rec files are raw data only. Your three .rec files are for one game only. You claim that digital joysticks provide better control than analog joysticks, period. That means it holds true for all game players and for all games. In order for you to prove that to be true you need to release all your imaginary data. All of it. For (at the least) dozens of games of varying controller input requirements played by dozens of game players using different joysticks. Do you actually have any of that or are you just going to attach a 5000x5000x500 bit jpeg of yourself next to a billboard that has the words "megabytes of data" written on it?

You have been continuously asked for all your data. You continuously claim to have all of it, "tons" in fact, yet you continuously restrict your output to three .rec files of one game and a few useless jpegs of computer monitors. What happened, are you using a digital joystick to try to attach all your "megabytes" of data to your posts?


P.S. Remember to attach all your data along with all the parameters of your experiments this time. Or admit by your refusal to do so that you're too dumb to follow simple instructions and too dishonest to follow through with the responsibility of communicating your results that the scientific method which you claim to have followed requires.

Put-up or shut-up time. All the data and all the parameters for your "hundreds" of experiments or colossal fail.


#2151475 Digital Joysticks provide better control than Analog Joysticks

Posted by ledzep on Sun Dec 5, 2010 7:36 PM


You are inept at realizing that a "proof" doesn't compare to actual observations. You can say that you proved that having infinite levels of control actual provides ZERO control and you can actually believe you're right but as soon as someone like the talented Tony Franklin demonstrates without doubt that he is in complete control of a completely analog fretless bass your "proof" evaporates and everyone sees your belief for what it is, a bias. The guy is a master of that analog, infinite-levels-of-control bass guitar and it kills you to know that and to not be able to prove that he actually has ZERO control.

Sly way to shoving things under the rug. But no worse than claims that logic is an acceptable replacement for claimed generated data.

You are speculating that he has infinite levels of control. You can play the guitar and be off at the position on the string by about a millimeter or so and nobody would notice the difference in the music. What bullcrap are you talking about infinite levels of control. I don't think you even understand what I wrote about more levels leads to less probability of control. Some people can't tell the difference between MP3 and uncompressed music and there's huge difference in terms of the data. You are taking something subjective (you hearing the same music) and just speculating he has infinite levels of control. And this is a person who has practiced many many years not something like picking up an analog joystick and playing a game. And your example is not even an analog joystick. Getting to strings on a guitar type instrument is more like a touchpad-- you have random access and the strings are digital-- discrete items that it would be hard to mess up. The position on the string you could mess up.


No, I'm not speculating anything. Ask your female personality, she's the one who said that having infinite levels of control actually means ZERO levels of control. Being able to fret an infinite amount of notes on just one string (and he has 4 strings on that bass) means infinite levels of control of the music he's playing. You further demonstrate that you don't know anything about music and that you've never played music or listened to real music played in a live setting because being off by as much as a millimeter on a fretless string instrument (bass, violin, etc.) would definitely be noticed by people who actually have an ear for music (read: not you). But then you also think that piano keys are purely digital controls, haahaahaa. So what if some people can or can't tell the difference between MP3s and uncompressed music, all you're arguing there is that subjective bias is allowable in experiments which of course would explain your idiotic views about digital joysticks being better when multiple people on this thread have demonstrated to you that not only are analog joysticks as good as or better than digital joysticks in terms of control or simply being able to play video games well but also that in general terms analog controls and analog information is superior to their compressed, digital equivalents. Way to go there.


Let me address your address:

"Who cares."

Seems given your high failure rate in backing up your claims of running experiments and generating data, you have resorted to pretending that the subject has moved over to personal attacks in order to avoid admitting that you've never run a single experiment or generated any data from it.

FACT: I have run the experiment, you haven't.
FACT: You are IN FACT mocking and calling names; no pretending; it's here in black and white.
FACT: I care. I have no obligation to reply to a fanatical emotionally biased person who mocks people. I rather deal with serious inquiries. Since you are making misleading remarks and distorting things, I have to keep wasting my time with you.


FACT: You have claimed to run "hundreds" of experiments yet have provided no proof that you've run even a single experiment. Prove you have run the experiment.
FACT: You IN FACT started with the name-calling and mocking so you are the last person involved with this subject who can cry about mocking or name-calling, heavily as you do cry about it.
FACT: You don't care. If you did you would realize that you have an obligation to support your claims of having run "hundreds" of experiments and having generated "megabytes" of data by actually releasing all that information into the public eye so that we can evaluate your claims. You'd rather deal with inventing lamer and lamer excuses for not presenting all your data and all the parameters of your experiments. Since you keep making misleading claims about things you supposedly have done and distorting things, we have to keep wasting our time pointing out your myriad faults and screwups.


You are unfit to conduct an experiment which explains why you haven't described the parameters of the experiment you claim to have run and haven't presented all the data that your fake experiment is supposed to have generated.

You are just making things up. The experiment is real.


Prove it. Release all the parameters of the experiment along with all the data. Why do you continuously resist presenting the information?


Prove that my views about what an experiment is is not what the real meaning is.

Already did. You don't need links to others if you have done the experiments yourself. If Newton had to provide links to others, nothing would have been discovered by him as scientific fact. Of course, I am sure others have experienced the same results as I don't know every person on the planet.


You didn't address the argument. Prove that my views about what an experiment is is not what the real meaning is. I have provided links to definitions that are accepted as the norm by the scientific community. Do you have an alternative definition that supports your idea that running an experiment to determine whether digital or analog joysticks provide better control really only means playing a lot of video games by yourself? Control groups and experimental groups, Genius, what were yours comprised of? What were the variables you tested? How did you test them? What hardware and software did you use to record the raw data? What methodology did you employ to interpret the data? When will you finally run the experiment you claim to have run?


What "others"? I'm blaming you for being a terrible debater because you're a terrible debater. "I know you are but what am I" isn't a sound debating technique, by the way.

You didn't understand the English. I think its time for you to take a nap. I'll continue with this if you realize your mistake here.


You didn't understand the English, that question was also directed specifically at your female alternate personality. I think it's time for you to have another therapy session. I'll continue with this if you realize that aprioriksi and Didntknow16 are two separate personalities and I was talking to your female one.


I didn't start the personal attacks, you and aprioriksi did. You were the ones saying that people were biased, illogical, emotional, hypocrites, blind, etc. Don't start nothin', won't be nothin'. But, again, too late to turn back now. Trying to change the subject to pleas for less personal attacks doesn't change the fact that you have claimed to have run experiments and generated data from then yet you refuse to corroborate that claim by presenting the parameters of your experiments along with the data those experiments supposedly generated. Empty claims are basically drivel, anyway.


You really don't know English. Hypocrite applies to you perfectly. It's not a personal attack. You are biased toward analog joystick as you admitted it. Blind following the blind applies if you follow analog joysticks because many others are doing it (again your own admission). Your P and -P for many things is illogical. Attacking people's user IDs doesn't follow from any argument anyone presented here nor bringing in people's mothers/grandmothers or whoever you bring in.


You really don't know English. Hypocrite applies to you perfectly. Of course you and Didntknow16 have been guilty of multiple personal attacks directed towards multiple people on this thread, people have been pointing out these occurrences continuously. You are biased against analog joystick as you admitted it. Blind following the blind applies if you follow digital joysticks because a few of your imaginary friends are doing it (again another of your empty claims that you can't prove). Your P and -P for all your empty claims is illogical, if you've run "hundreds" of experiments and have "megabytes" of data then the logical thing to do is to present all your data and all your findings, otherwise you merely support the majority view that you never ran any experiment in your life and that you have no data to support your theory. You cannot claim to have run "hundreds" of experiments and have "megabytes" of data and then not prove by presenting them to the rest of us.


#2149626 Digital Joysticks provide better control than Analog Joysticks

Posted by ledzep on Fri Dec 3, 2010 3:28 AM

You would have to be blind if you think you're right after all the evidence in front of your face. Nobody has pointed out any errors with the experiment. Oh, by the way, you are allowed to refute scientific facts. But it doesn't work by just writing something-- you have to perform the same experiment and show it gives opposite results. For one example, show me that with an analog joystick you can make the same exact wide jumps from one edge to the other in the "pie screen" third platform in Donkey Kong with a lower failure rate than with a digital joystick.


I'd love to see some evidence. All I've seen so far is a few stills of TVs with video games on them, a few random formulas, some pointless analogies from you that confirm you don't know what is and isn't digital in the modern world and a whole lot of excuses for you not presenting all the parameters of your fictional experiments along with all the data those experiments supposedly generated.

I can't "run the experiment myself" until I know, in specific detail, how you ran the experiment. Which means you need to explain what hardware and software you used to record the data, what various video games you included in the experiments, how many people were in the control and experimental groups, how many times each game player played each game with each joystick (digital and analog), etc., etc., etc. But for whatever reason you absolutely refuse to supply those parameters so it is impossible for anyone to "perform the same experiment" given the total lack of information from your end.

Oh, by the way, you are allowed to prove that you ran experiments. But it doesn't work by just stating that you ran them -- you have to present the parameters of the experiment along with all the data. For one example, show me that you ran the experiments that you claim to have run.

You can't just label things as anecdotal without proof. Again, you are the hypocrite here. Given you haven't performed the experiment and just use analog joysticks, the only thing you can do is say "I don't know" or if you actually understand the logic/mathematics of why analog joystick have inferior control then you can say that my experiment is true blue without performing it. You are just making false claims otherwise.


You can't just label things as proven without proof. Again, you are the hypocrite here. Given you haven't presented any information about the experiment you claim to have conducted or all the data generated by it the only thing you can do is say "I haven't run any experiment" or if you actually understand the scientific method then you can actually conduct and then present a thorough experiment and data that actually supports your opinion about digital joysticks. You are just making false claims otherwise.

I see you never read the thread or pretending as if these things weren't done. You want me to dump you more recordings of those failure points in the games because you are inept at seeing the logic behind it? And stop juggling the word parameter. I clearly stated which joysticks are being used and the screenshots I showed are some of the games that were played. Nobody has time to play every game ever made just like no one ever tried to prove F=ma by trying every possible mass, acceleration, force to see if they match. If you can't understand the data presented, you have a problem.


I see you have never conducted an experiment in your life or are pretending that stating that you ran experiments is the same thing as actually performing experiments. I want you to present all the parameters of your experiments along with all the data generated by those supposed experiments. And quick misunderstanding the word 'parameter' (See, when you can easily find definitions on the internet that means you're probably on the right track and as I schooled your female personality on this subject, authoritative sources bolster your argument.), I clearly stated what that entails and what you, as the liar who boasted of performing "hundreds of experiments", is responsible for presenting. Nobody has the time to listen to you try every excuse ever invented for not backing up your claims of having run "hundreds of experiments" and having "megabytes of data" like how you keep invoking F=ma as if Newton had been as stupid as you have been and claimed that he'd run hundreds of experiments but then refused to present any of the parameters for his experiments along with all the data from those experiments. If you can't understand the scientific method, you have a problem.

See all you do is try to say the samething back without understanding that what I wrote is FACTUALLY true and what you wrote is just your MENTAL SPECULATION. You come to my home and I'll run the BASIC program and I'll see how many states you get right.


See all you do is try to use the same excuses without understanding that what you claim is just your MENTAL SPECULATION until you actually present proof that you ran "hundreds of experiments" and you also present all the data so that others can judge for themselves if you have conducted a fair, unbiased experiment. What I just wrote about you is FACTUALLY true, too.


What was clear about the BASIC program that aprioriksi presented is that he doesn't know how to program for an analog joystick as a controller for a game that only requires signals for cardinal positions (Pac-Man type games). You know, the only thing a digital joystick can output. There is no reason for him to care about any values other than the cardinal positions so his BASIC program should filter for that. Someone else on this thread provided that very programming logic and aprioriksi ignored it as have you.

I have answered this 5 times already. I didn't ask for every state. I only asked for states which will cause change in direction from center. Go back and read it. You purposely try to distort things to make people think something else. But getting to any state is just as improbably as any other state. Do you know at which point the analog joystick will cause the pac-man to go left? I hope you understand by now that thresholds are being used. Don't blame the programmers. You are the one who needs help.


You have been rebutted at least 5 times already. Your program checks for every state. Yet if you want to use an analog joystick for a game that is geared towards a digital joysticks (cardinal directions only) it's a waste of time to check for anything other than what the outputs of the cardinal directions on an analog joystick would be. You purposely try to distort things to make people think something else. But knowing "a priori" any state is just as improbable as any other state given that you don't take into account the various fractions of a second that comprise the chain of events that starts at the player moving the joystick to the joystick sending a signal to the computer register receiving the output from the joystick to the program checking the register to the program acting on the new information to the program updating the game graphics and, if necessary, score and position to the TV monitor displaying the change. There is no way for you to prove that you or anybody else can distinguish between those various states in that one scenario. Of course, you could conduct an experiment to... who am I kidding, we all know that's the last thing on Earth you'll ever do, right? No wait, let me guess, you've run that experiment "hundreds" of times, too! Hahaahaa!

I hope you understand now that state changes are not singular nor instantaneous. Don't blame the speed of light or electrical resistance. You are the one who needs help.


That simplistic bit of BASIC code was his, not some gaming company's. I looked at the screenshots. Wow, very pretty. They represent nothing besides the probability that aprioriksi has copies of those pictures. Those screenshots, by themselves, fail to prove -

( 1 ) that they were taken on his TV and/or at his place,
( 2 ) that they represent gameplay of people who were part of his experiment,
( 3 ) that they represent gameplay of people who were using analog joysticks,
( 4 ) that they were taken during the data gathering portion of his experiment,

Ha ha! Now you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel. (1) they were but that is irrelevant, (2) duh, of course they represent gameplay of people doing the experiment, (3) they represent gameplay for all three-- analog joysticks, digital joysticks, and keyboard, (4) as I said, I can repeat it anytime and I'll get similar results. It's related to the fact that analog joysticks have uncertainty while digital joysticks don't. That uncertainty also relates to switching time being inferior on analog joysticks as well.


Ha ha HA! Now you're really scraping the bottom of the excuses barrel. (1) Prove it, (2) duh, prove it, (3) prove it, (4) as I said, prove it. It's related to the fact that all you've done is claimed to have conducted "hundreds of experiments", you have yet to prove that you have run even a single experiment.

The longer you make excuses and avoid providing proof (description/parameters of your experiment + all the data) the more certain everyone is that you never ran an experiment in your life, much less hundreds of experiments testing joysticks.

I can play those anytime, anywhere, and any place. They will yield similar failures for analog joysticks. Other unbiased people will also get same results. I don't know about you since you only prefer analog joysticks.


More empty claims.

Prove it. Play those anytime, anywhere, and any place, detail the parameters of your tests and release all the data generated from the tests. Other unbiased people will finally admit that you actually ran an experiment that produced data. I don't know about you since you haven't run any actual experiments yet.


Aprioriksi has already stated that he doesn't feel the need to release the "megabytes" of data because he doesn't think I'll understand it. That means he actually has all the data and that he won't allow others to look it over. He doesn't get to decide what amount of "enough data" he needs to provide. In order to prove his claim that he ran experiments and that he generated "megabytes" of data from them he has to release all of it. Not some, not half, not "enough", but all of it. He has up to now refused to do that.

First things first. Do you accept the data presented. If yes, then say YES I accept that is valid data. If not, don't ask for anymore.


First things first. Do you actually have all the data you have lied about generating? If yes, then say YES and release all the data along with the parameters of the experiments that generated that data. If not, don't make bullshit claims about having run "hundreds of experiments", having "megabytes of data" and claiming that "many others" have also run these experiments.

Nope, people who prefer analog joysticks thinking they have better control are living in the bubble. People who don't see data in front of them are living in a bubble.


Nope, people who make false claims about having conducted experiments that produced megabytes of data and then refuse to provide the parameters of those experiments along with all the data generated are living in a bubble. That's you and your lipsticked split personality, Bubble Boy. People who don't release data in front of them are liars.

And what constitutes ALL? You can generate terabytes of data if you keep playing the game. As I said, better to understand why the small amount of data is what it is and then the rest would be a breeze to understand. Perhaps, I would have to post it on some server to avoid clogging up AtariAge.


What? You're that dumb? All constitutes ALL. You can release terabytes of data if you actually generated terabytes of data. As I said, better to understand why the small amount of data that you have grudgingly presented out of context of the whole is worthless and then the totality of your fuckups would be a breeze to understand. Perhaps, you would have to stop making suggestions about your fictional data and actually present your fictional data in order to convince anyone that you ever conducted an experiment in the first place.


I argue against equating arrow keys with joysticks and equating joystick simulators with actual joysticks. I argue against substituting inadequate replacements for the actual, easily-acquired joysticks that aprioriksi initially claimed he had included in his experiments.

There you go again. P and -P. All that crap about presenting data and now you want to argue against the data. You really have NO CLUE what you are talking about.


There you go again. Excuse and excuse. All that crap about pretending that you have megabytes of data and now you want to argue that you don't know what "all" means. You really have NO CLUE what you are talking about.

Stop the rubbish. This is the first time you mentioned "it was a joke". Everyone is free to interpret it as he/she likes. My going to JFK was real and no joke. And I was ACTUALLY stuck in traffic there. I have witnesses since I went to pick up people there.


Stop the excuses. Who cares where you were going or where you got stuck in traffic. Get to the point and present the parameters of your experiments and release all the data generated by them.


Until you do that it's nothing but lies.

It doesn't really matter what you label things. Only the facts count. The fact remains digital joysticks provide better control than analog joysticks. Once you are out of your P and -P, we'll talk about the experiment or the logic some more.


It doesn't really matter what excuses you try. Only the facts count. The fact remains that you claim that it's a scientific fact that digital joysticks provide better control than analog joysticks (it isn't a scientific fact), you claim to have conducted experiments to test this opinion of yours (you haven't conducted any experiments) and you claim to have megabytes of data from these experiments (you have no data to present). Once you actually conduct some experiments and present the specifics of how you ran them, who you ran them on, what you ran them with and include all the data from those experiments we'll talk about your idiotic theory and whether your data supports it or not some more.


"I've run experiments and have data that proves I'm right."

"Oh really? Then tell us about the experiments and show us the data that proves your position."

"I don't have to, logic is good enough. It's so obvious."

Which equals you never conducted any experiments and you never generated any data. Why make false claims like that?

You are COMPLETELY wrong. I gave you the four catagories remember-- (1) logic/math, (2) experimental data, (3) mental speculation, (4) blind following the blind. I said, I proved it using (1) and (2). That means the experimental data is there as well as the logic/math. The logic/math is superior. Don't try to create a dichotomy of one or the other. Don't misquote others. So far you are only proving you are in catagory number (4) and using mental speculation to try to support your blind following.


I am COMPLETELY right. We refuted your four categories remember. If "the experimental data is there" then release all of it. Your excuses for failing to do so are inferior. Don't try to substitute an excuse for actual proof. Don't misunderstand basic scientific principles. So far you are only proving you have no concept of what an experiment is, no clue of how to conduct one and no proof of having run any experiments yourself and using mental speculation to try to convince people you've done something you clearly have not.