RoseLegion: Why quote me quoting but leave out the citation? :P
Ah well, either way I suppose.
Telika: The point is how irrelevant it is, the sort of pompous dramatic sentences that people fetch to parallel their gaming frustration with the issue of totalitarianisms. The matter is not where the pseudo-illustrative quote has been fetched from.
RoseLegion: Why quote me quoting but leave out the citation? :P
Ah well, either way I suppose.
Telika: The point is how irrelevant it is, the sort of pompous dramatic sentences that people fetch to parallel their gaming frustration with the issue of totalitarianisms. The matter is not where the pseudo-illustrative quote has been fetched from.
If you're looking for relevance you should consider the enitre post, also know as the context rather than picking one sentence out of the entire statement, a quote from a game no less, and focusing on it.
For example this from the same post
RoseLegion: If it is simply a case of GOG having a set of non-subjective criterion which the game did not meet then there is no reason to look further, much less release it.
or this also from the same post
RoseLegion: I would like to add on this point however that while having such a set of standards it completely legitimate in my view. Such non-subjective and recurrent standards should I believe be a matter of public record.
This would allow members of the community here, as well as future prospective members, to make informed choices (avoiding controversy such as this thread topic) and as GOG has been a great place for Indy games it would also allow their Devs to be better informed at an early stage as to whether their particular game is likely to be a good fit for GOG thus saving both those Devs and GOG time and money in the cases where they wouldn't be a good fit.
There's the further relevant context that my post you are quoting from was in response directly to the repeated concepts voiced by other users rather than as any direct reply to the specific game or situation in question which I openly stated was not something I felt all that invested in or inclined to assess as I do not believe I am all that suited to assess the value of this particular title given it is outside of my tastes.
None of which fits the defining characteristics of
pompous ( Characterized by excessive self-esteem or exaggerated dignity; pretentious ) but which were quite relvant to the context and content of the posts quoted in my response. Unlike your prior which seems to highlight being willfully irrelivant and frankly rather pompous in its own right. Sensationalizing something, quoting out of context, or "shouting" in caps does nothing to foster a high quality or more mature conversation, nor does applying psudo ad hominims in response to a simple request for clarification.
If your intent is to improve the quality of coversation then I would strongly urge a more approprite method. If it was something less constructive then I suppose I see no further motive to continue this particular coversation.