Originally Posted by Corrections
Remember when you used Amazon data to "prove" how well Microsoft’s Zune was selling? That was hilarious.
I think you have me mistaken for someone else, Daniel. You're more then welcome to link to what you're referring to though. However, much like the time you asked me to point out factual innacuracies in your articles because you didn't believe there were any (which I sent to you), I doubt there will be any response or Corrections on your part.
Originally Posted by Steven N.
You raise some valid points but as I mentioned earlier, with each back and forth we get further and further from the point. I could certainly respond with the parts that I disagree with but it's getting to the point that it's becoming tedious. We're way past the initial point and I can't see the benefit.
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. Even if DNA testing were to prove that it is not in fact a duck, it would still share similarities to a duck in both look and sound. If you can't see the similarities then you can't see the similarities. C'est la vie.
Edited by DroidFTW - 3/3/14 at 1:36pm