Years to turns....

[caravel]

I did not mean to insult you. I apologize for coming over that way.

Well telling someone their use of adverbs is sloppy is almost guaranteed to come across as an insult. Sorry to break it to you.

But in your first post you said
"...there has never been a word..."
In the second post you said
"The AI was hardly mentioned."
Now, hardly is infinitely more often than never. You also said:
" Every single bit of PR over at the .com was based around the eye candy aspects and not alot else."
Which is strictly taken a contradiction since not a lot else is usually understood as "slightly more than nothing" while every single bit implies that it would have to be absolutely nothing.

Unfortunately while hurriedly typing out posts in my dinner breaks I often make glaring grammatical errors such as those that you have quoted above, and I often make quite a few errors anyway. I didn't come here claiming to be an literary expert, nor a an exemplary grammatist. Anyone that wasn't deliberately being pedantic could have easily worked out what I was trying to say.

In your first post, your claim was very strong rhethorically ("never"). When I challenged that claim, instead of defending or dropping it, you changed the claim into something weaker and vaguer ("hardly mentioned"), to defend it from further attacks. I found this bad argumentative style.
The truth is that the marketing emphasis did not lie on what you would have preferred (which is understandable) though we both know that you couldn't quantify it. You made your opinion seem more objective than it was.

Yes what I was trying to say was that other aspects of the game have gone largely unmentioned by CA. It is the nature of my culture to use definite language to signify the indefinite. You can think of it as a kind of exaggerative slang. It doesn't come across well when using this medium however and maybe I should refrain from such definite statments in the future? Though in your case it seems that every statement needs to be exacting.

My reaction was mediated by your statement "Only the CA apologists could fail to recognise the target audience of this game." I find that offensive because I don't consider myself a CA apologist nor do I think the target audience of the game is as clear as you make it out.

I'm at a loss as to how you can find that statement offensive. If you can recognise the target audience of the game, then you are not a CA apologist. And only the pedantic choose to deliberately rip apart the grammar of a post they don't agree with. It's as simple as that.

Now was that worded ok? Or shall I run all my future posts through my solicitors?